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.

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.