This was pretty gross.

I know, redundant title for a post re: Alan Colmes.

You don't shoot rapid fire questions at a woman with cerebral palsy who is trying to take a half second to gather her thoughts.



Alan tries to claim that the bills Obama voted against wouldn't apply to Jessen because infants were protected if they had a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival." I know what Jessen was going to say - because of the cerebral palsy, SHE did not have a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival. She very unreasonably lived (here in the states where life is a miracle, we call that "beating the odds"). As such, she is right, Alan is wrong - the laws Obama refused to amend would have allowed her to be legally killed.

Obviously Alan is in an untenable position here. He can disagree as a matter of policy, but isn't rude enough to tell the girl to her face that she should have died. But isn't that the basis for the left's support of abortion? That the loss of unwanted fetuses is acceptable for the greater good of protecting a woman's bodily integrity?

My life got a lot easier when I realized that shame didn't indicate a difficult position, it indicated an incorrect position.

But look at what Alan actually said and apparently believes: It should be ok to refrain from giving care to babies (that's what we call fetuses that are born alive) without:

Reasonable likelihood of sustained survival.

Reasonable?

That's civil case standard. Failure to use "reasonable care" gets you civilly sued. It's not enough for criminal liability anywhere, ever.

But "reasonable" is enough to let the baby die?

And note that it's reasonable in the eye of one paid abortion provider who is likely facing civil liability for "unreasonably" delivering a live infant during an abortion procedure. (Note: "Wrongful life" is an actionable claim in some states, just like "wrongful death"!!)

At least in a civil case, you get the community standard for reasonableness - twelve people decide. If you're a baby, your judge, jury, and executioner is a physician on the hook for substantial increase in malpractice premiums who can save himself by quietly snuffing out your life. And in a civil case, you have lawyers. The born-alive fetus (baby) has no advocate in the abortion clinic.

As a practical matter, I'd bet that this still occurs even with the laws in place. The stakes are too high for the physician and the way to save themselves too simple and easy. But that's why the law is important - you need big teeth to shift the incentives in the other direction.

Obama would let the doctor decide "reasonableness" on the spot. Then he would let the abortionist strangle the innocent, or cut her throat.

Do you trust him with your kid?

I read the SIECUS Guidelines so you don't have to!

Obama thinks it should have been legal for me to stab my baby girl in the head and kill her while I was giving birth to her, so long as she came out feet first.

He also thinks that her kindergarten teacher should tell her:

• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.

SIECUS guidelines, page 25 (NOTE: All quotes below are from the age 5-8 category)

• Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
• Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
• Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.

page 26-27.

• Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
• Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.

page 29.

• Many people live in lifetime committed relationships, even though they may not be legally married.
• Two people of the same gender can live in loving, lifetime committed relationships.

page 38-39.

• Most children are curious about their bodies.
• Bodies can feel good when touched.

page 51.

• Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.

page 51-52.

• People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.

page 52.

• There are many types of sexually transmitted diseases.
• People who do not engage in certain behaviors do not get STDs.
• The most common ways for a person to get an STD is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.

page 63.

This is just for the real young kiddies. The material for the older ones is shocking. The SEICUS guys apparently have quite the hard-on (sorry) for masturbation in particular. In later grades they learn that masturbation, homosexuality, and unmarried cohabitation is ok, that they can decide that religious teachings aren't personally "relevant," and that the Internet can enhance your sex life (seriously).

This is the man who wants government involved full-time in your child's life through universal pre-K and a lack of ways for people (particularly poor people) to opt out of public schooling. These are not simply academic concerns.

So I honestly to pose the question - Do you trust him with your kid?

I need to know who not to trust with my kid.

Women and Children First!

I cannot believe the insinuations the Dems are making about the Palin family. First the comments about whether the veep can adequately parent a newborn. Then they say that her 17 year old daughter birthed her new son (because Downs happens at such high rates in 17 yo vs. 44 yo, right?) . In doing so, they are committing slander per se against a seventeen year old girl who has not, of her own volition, ever made any attempt to seek the spotlight.

Now the ever-disgusting Alan Colmes claims that Palin didn't get proper prenatal care, gets caught in that disgusting bit of misogyny, and blames his spineless (failed) cover up to "vile" "conservatives" who "invade" (apparently visiting a public website is an invasion now). Proving he still doesn't get it, he says that his position can be summed up as follows:

I love how everyone keeps trying to accuse Alan of accusing Princess Mooseburger of birthing a mentally retarded child on purpose. He asked a judgement question about a 7 month pregnant woman who just had her water break GET ON A 12 HOUR FLIGHT TO GIVE BIRTH after giving a 30 MINUTE SPEECH instead of doing the SENSIBLE THING AND STAYING PUT WITH A DOCTOR.

Because who are you, Sarah Palin, mother of four and expecting your fifth, to decide what's appropriate for your body and your son, because ALAN COLMES and his hateful commenters know better than you about your body and your pregnancy. How dare you suggest otherwise, you uppity freak.

Disgusting. It's almost like the party that's going to save women's "reproductive freedoms" is trying to keep her down because of her uterus. I'm starting to understand why lefties get so emotional on social issues - it's not a great feeling having the villagers with pitchforks coming for my uterus. Apparently reproductive freedom extends only to the freedom to kill - not the freedom to breed.

At least Colmes didn't try to pretend he gave a crap about Trig Palin. Because we all know he's thinking that she should have just killed him in the womb anyway. That, to me, is the more salient judgment question.

Can the abortion middle-grounders be flipped?

Much as people like to think that “Disaffected Hillary voters” are a "McCain concocted myth," anecdotes abound to the contrary. I've spoken with two women recently - one formerly on the fence, one a committed Dem/Hillary voter, both of whom now have tentative plans to vote for McCain (although the latter swore me to secrecy). Because McCain's been "the maverick" foreover and Hillary is more of a centrist than many Democrats, there can be a substantial overlap among undecided non-ideologically driven voters. I think that people are overestimating the degree to these voters will reject Palin for her pro-life views. This in particular seems overblown.

Sarah Palin is not a supporter of women’s civil rights. She’s rabidly anti women’s right to self-determination, which means she’s the conservatives’ darling. But she’s got bigger problems than relegating females to second class citizens. McCain’s against equal pay, so it’s not like he’s picking Palin out of respect. This is desperation time for the Republicans.

Right or wrong, many people's attitudes toward a position are going to be shaped by who is conveying the message. There are lots of people who use otherwise reasonable ideas as cover to promote more nefarious goals. Whether or not an idea is "cover" for something worse is going to be examined, like it or not. Much as those at the edges may not be able to believe it, I think there are lots of American women who are ambivalent or undecided on the abortion question.

Polling data shows that American women are, on whole, deeply uncomfortable about the idea of abortion (ie: they would never personally do it). I would bet that many are, however, worried about whether men use anti-abortion rhetoric as a means to control women. The day-to-day chance that men (husbands, bosses, doctors) are going to try to control their bodies in various ways (get up, go to bed, don't eat that) is a lot higher than the chance they're going to need or want an abortion. Especially when you're pregnant, it seems like the whole world wants to micromanage everything you do. For crying out loud, strangers touch you like they own you. It's also very difficult to be pregnant and find out how little doctors actually know, how little choice you actually have (try telling a doctor to save your 22 week miscarriage and watch how hospital policy trumps respect for the patients' body and choice). The NYTimes reported this week about women being upset at their doctors treating them as constantly "prepregnant." And yet, all those people that are so concerned with what's going inside you disappear instantly when there's actual parenting to do.

I think there is a wide middle ground on the issue of abortion pragmatists who think: abortion is horrible, but so is pregnancy itself. For those women, let them pick the side that prevents still more people from interfering in our day-to-day lives. I think the control issue may be more of an emotional hot-button than the abortion itself. That's not because the decision to abort isn't emotional, but the stakes of that decision are more evenly balanced and more removed from most women's daily lives.

I don't see Palin setting off the "here's someone else to micromanage my life" alarm. This isn't a showily pious evangelist preaching pro-life out of "respect for women" while occasionally battering his wife. Nor is she the stereotypical Kool-Aid drinking wife-and-mother spouting traditional orthodoxy without recognition of the burdens imposed by the position. Palin may be a hardliner on the issue, but I don't see women thinking that the desire to control and subjugate women is the actual driving force behind the decision. She's someone whose lived her life the way she's seen fit, made a decision, and lived by it, taking the bad along with the good.

Because seriously, come on. Does this look like someone whose coming for your uterus?
This isn't someone who is pro-fetus because she's anti-you. This isn't someone who looks like she would take the suffering involved in pregnancy lightly and just expect you to deal with it just because that's what women are supposed to do. I mean really, she announces her candidacy and then goes right backstage to feed and change the baby.

The Blackberries, diapers, and wipes on the table wholly encapsulate the plight of today's working women. (I love that she uses the same store-brand babywipes that I do.) And since quite a few of those women were Hillary voters, they may very well be looking for someone else who understands them and their interests. I don't see the pro-life position as a dealbreaker for them.