Strollerderby : anti-choice

UPDATE: President Obama Issues Statement About Dr. George Tiller

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:36:00 GMT

President Barack Obama has issued a statement about the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Well said, Mr. President.

TheRoot.com points out: "It's fairly unusual for the White House to comment on this type of local story. But the news of Tiller's murder, allegedly by an anti-choice activist apprehended this afternoon by local and state police, has reverberated across the country in a matter of hours—and inflamed a longstanding debate about abortion rights in America."

Methinks this won't be the last we hear about the matter.

Original post follows:

*-*-*-*

Sad news from Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering at church. A suspect is in custody.

From Huffington Post:

WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion, making him a favored target of anti-abortion protesters. He testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue was no fan of Dr. Tiller; there is a "Tiller Watch" page on their web site. The group has issued a statement condemning the murder.

Tiller was recently tried for "allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly 'independent' as required by Kansas state law." It was a big deal case (we covered it on Strollerdery), with both sides tossing out big deal rhetoric. "Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as 'a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.'" (Source for both quotes: Wikipedia)

This is an ugly end to an ugly story. Hopefully the police have the right person and they will be punished. That won't bring anyone back to life, of course. No matter what side of the abortion debate you are on, I hope you agree that shooting someone in cold blood is a horrible thing to do.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: CrooksAndLiars

Finish Line - Creepy Cakes, Sesame Street, And Much More

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

There Oughta Be A Law (Really?)

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT

The state of Oklahoma is set to pass a law that would protect pregnant women against murder charges if they kill to protect their unborn child(ren). Legislators pushing for the bill (which passed the state's house this week and soon will hit the senate, where it is expected to pass) cite a case in which a Michigan woman, pregnant with quadruplets, killed her boyfriend after he punched her in the belly. The woman was charged with manslaughter; she lost the pregnancy as well.

Now, I don't know about you but I would have no problem using maximum force if someone threatened me while pregnant, or if they threatened one of my children. That said, I'm not sure a new law is needed -- I would use force to defend myself or my kids whether I was currently pregnant or not. The only purpose such a law could serve would be to make the Oklahoma legislature appear to care deeply about women facing domestic abuse while pregnant (which is a real problem), and to create a back-door justification for future legislation targeting women who do anything while pregnant that could be perceived as harmful to a fetus. So if you're comfortable with the idea of fining or jailing women for failing to take their prenatals, then you should support this law. Otherwise, it's really just a waste of lawmakers' time at best, a cynical and sneaky anti-choice move at worst.

Sadly, many women are beaten when pregnant (though it's not always or even often because they "refuse to abort their child," as argued by Representative Mike Thompson). I'm all in favor of toughening laws and procedures to help protect women from domestic violence. As for mistreatment that happens specifically to pregnant women, heck, let's see if we can rectify some of the worst abuses they face now, like expensive or nonexistent medical care, the inability to find a private health insurer who will cover them, or the lack of a federallly mandated paid maternity leave? Advocacy for those goals would help moms and babies more than this silly bill ever could.

So yeah, I'd probably kill to protect my unborn baby. But I'd fight any law -- like this one -- whose actual goal isn't to help pregnant women, but to hurt them.

More by this author:

Spurred to Action by Natasha Richardson Death, Parents Save Girl

Child Support Suffers in a Recession, Too

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

Proposed Anti-Octomom Law Stalls, For Now

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:30:00 GMT

A Georgia state bill that would have imposed severe limits on IVF, promoted as a measure to prevent future "Octomom" situations, is unlikely to be passed this year, according to observers. The proposed legislation, which has been sent to a senate subcommittee for further study, would have required doctors and fertility clinics to fertilize no more embryos than they planned to transfer into a woman, and would have limited the number to no more than two or three, depending upon the woman's age. Proponents have suggested that this kind of legislation is sorely needed to protect both women and taxpayers from situations like Nadya Suleman's, in which the transfer of a large number of embryos resulted in a case of super-multiples with no visible means of support.

And we can all get behind that, right?

Well, not so fast. As Slate's William Saletan pointed out in a column this week, the bill, S.B. 169, is really a backdoor attempt to impose the same kind of "personhood" rights on embryos and fetuses that a state legislature in North Dakota recently passed. Under the guise of imposing sanity on the Wild West atmosphere still prevailing in some fertility clinics (and yes, Octomom is pretty much Exhibit A for what's wrong in that world), S.B. 169 would penalize all fertility patients, ban stem-cell research and declare that legally an embryo has rights that should be paramount (over the rights of living, breathing human beings).

Since the stem-cell and "personhood" issues are both facets of the whole reproductive freedom issue and most people have already made up their minds how they feel about them, I think it's most interesting to see how S.B. 169, if it ever were passed, would effect regular people seeking IVF or other fertility treatments. Under the bill's provisions, a mother could only have 2-3 embryos transferred, and due to the bill's "fertilize only as many as you transfer" language, she could not produce other fertilized eggs that could then be frozen and used in subsequent cycles (which is how nearly all current IVF patients proceed). This would vastly reduce the likelihood of success of each IVF cycle since not all fertilized eggs become transferrable blastocycts, and not all of those transferred blastocycts become implanted embryos, and not all of those embryos stick around long enough to become human babies; the more non-medical limitations placedon the number of eggs fertilized, the smaller the pool for even potential success. And given the cost of each IVF cycle, couples would quickly find themselves priced out of the fertility game unless they got very lucky, very early on.

As Saletan says of the bill's limits on egg fertilization:

How does this restriction "protect the mother" and "reduce the risk of complications" for her? It doesn't. If you wanted to protect the woman, you might limit the number of embryos that could be transferred to her womb, not the number that can be created in the dish. In fact, by limiting the number that can be created, you increase her risk of complications. The fewer eggs you fertilize, the lower your chances of producing an embryo healthy enough to be transferred and carried to term. That means a higher failure rate, which in turn means that women will have to undergo more treatment cycles, with the corresponding risks of ovarian hyperstimulation and advancing maternal age.

So why limit the number of embryos created per cycle? Because the bill's chief purpose isn't really to help women. It's to establish legal rights for embryos.

So don't be fooled. This kind of bill will no doubt make its debut in other state legislatures, particularly in states with a strong lobby against reproductive freedom and for embryo rights. If its advocates would come right out and say that's what they're fighting for, I'd have a lot more respect for them. Instead, by using impressive-sounding scientific language and making grand gestures toward women's health and taxpayer's dollars, they're trying to fool the public and use state legislative means to make an end run around Supreme Court precedent. As for women who only want a healthy baby or two, they become the innocent bystanders who stand to get hurt if bills like this pass.

More by this author:

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

California Daycare Closed; Worker Was Mocking Kids' Genitals

"Angels in Waiting" Apparently Still Waiting

"Pro-Choice Women Shouldn't Cry Over Miscarriages"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Just in case your day is going a little too smoothly, let me share an article that will make your blood boil—particularly if you are one of the numerous women who has suffered the pain of a miscarriage and also happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose.

A guest blogger named Gina over at Mom Logic has written a gem of offensive inanity called “Pro-Choice? Quit Crying Over Your Miscarriage!” Here’s how Gina characterizes the pro-choice women who “break down in hysterics” over a miscarriage: “It's a baby when they want it to be, it's a bundle of cells when they don't.”

This is such a shameless confusion of the issue that we need to put Gina’s thinking in perspective with an extreme—but real-life—example: do I believe that a 12-year-old rape victim should be forced to keep her baby? Absolutely not. Would I be heartbroken if I lost the baby I was carrying, whom I had carefully planned my life around for years? Absolutely. These are two entirely different issues. One has to do with my belief in the universal right to reproductive freedom, which is essential to ending the oppression of women; the other has to do with my personal feelings about motherhood.

Many women who would not choose to have an abortion themselves (except perhaps in extreme cases such as rape or incest) respect other women’s right to choose—as do many men, who will never face the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. That’s why it’s called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. By Gina’s line of thinking, no one who wants kids—male or female—should support a woman’s right to choose.

Gina also writes of pro-choice women who have the gall to want kids of their own: “Suddenly the monthly visitor that they were relieved to get when they were 20, now, at 32, plunges them into the depths of depression.” Well, Gina, this is a little something called “family planning”: making life choices that give both you and your future children the best chances for happiness and success—and therefore, bettering the world. How could anyone take issue with women who were responsible enough to avoid pregnancies when they were too young to care for a child? If it weren’t for unplanned pregnancies, there would be no need for abortion in the first place.

Gina claims that she “respects women’s right to choose.” If she truly is pro-choice—which, by her own definition, means believing that all babies are nothing more than “a conglomeration of microscopic cells” until they are out of the womb—then I sincerely hope she never gets pregnant. It’d be pretty difficult to avoid things like smoking and drinking if you have zero emotional attachment to your baby.

Photo: Flickr/Steve Rhodes

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

Brett Singer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Pop quiz: you have a history of cancer in your family. You want to have children. Science has progressed to the point where you can alter your unborn child's genetics so that they will be born without the particular gene that causes the particular type of cancer in your bloodline. What do you do?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. A baby girl was just born in Britain without the defective BRCA1 gene, which causes cancer in 50 to 85 percent of girls, according to London's Daily Mail. That gene is rampant in this particular London family, who wisely chose to remain anonymous. (No reality TV show for those two.)

When the unborn are mucked with, controversy follows. Various Pro-Life/Anti-Choice advocates, such as James Dowson of LifeLeague, are against the practice, calling it a "slippery slope…It is designer babies. Screening for cancer is an emotive issue - my own father and grandfather both had cancer, so I know - but it is a dangerous road to go down. Today it is cancer, next year it will be IQ, and the year after that blue eyes and blonde hair."

I don't like the term "designer baby". It sounds like something you create in a lab. But isn't that what doctors are doing? I realize that I'm not offering a good analysis of the science involved here. The Daily Mail article is decent, and there is lots of information online if you want to read up on it. I'm going to stick with the more parenting-related issues that come up with this story.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the idea of genetic screening, and even more hesitant to agree with genetic manipulation. Although I'm not a scientist (I even graduated college without passing a single science class, for what that's worth) I feel strongly that doctors can't possibly know what the long-term effects are of adding and removing genes from anyone, in utero or fully-grown. Like most Jewish parents, my wife and I went through the genetic screening process when she was pregnant, but declined to know all of the information that they found. It's one thing to check and see if you are a carrier for a horrible and incurable disease such as Tay-Sachs. It's something else to find out what the chances are that your child will contract various types of cancers. We decided that we'd rather not know.

And therein lies the core of the issue – choice. If a technique is available and medically possible, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not it can be used.

My ambivalence comes from the idea of trying to create a baby with traits that you pick off of a menu of human characteristics – "I'll have the blue eyes with a hint of hazel, and a boy with a strong right leg so he can grow up to be an NFL punter like Jeff Feagles." (Hey, Jeff Feagles is one of the best punters in football. And punters can play longer than any other position in the game because they don't get hit much.) This may sound silly, but I've read enough comic books and seen enough movies to know that messing around with genetics rarely ends well. Eventually some lunatic – Hitler, perhaps – decides to create a Master Race of Super Soldiers and starts World War III. Hm, maybe it's not just a comic book thing.

As with abortion, this is a religious issue. Conservative British politician Ann Widdecombe said, "'A lot of embryos have genes in them that could lead to nothing but them turning into perfectly healthy humans. Once again this shows a worrying precedent that man wants to play God."

This is the argument that nobody ever makes when it comes to the death penalty. But that's a different story.

What do you think? Is this just another issue of personal choice and women's reproductive freedom? Or is it more dangerous? And even if it is more dangerous, does anyone have the right to tell someone not to do it?

Source: Daily Mail

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

A Quiverfull Of Kids

Brett Singer — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

I learned a new word today – Quiverfull.

According to a blog entry on Sodahead.com (doesn't sound very impressive but hey, let's take our new words where we can get them), "Quiverfull…is a growing movement of Protestants" who believe that "since children are blessings from God, we should receive as many as God will give." Therefore, no birth control. The Duggar family is about to have their 18th child, and they are a quiverfull family.

The best line from the Sodahead post is, "I'm not sure how to tell the difference between a husband who wants sex and God saying that it's time to put another bun in the oven." I imagine that someone who has a strong faith in God would say that it's all the same thing – that is, if daddy wants some and that leads to another baby, then it was all God's will. (No, I am not a theologian.) The comments on the post bring up a host of issues ranging from whether or not it's responsible to bring children into the world willy-nilly to abortion rights.

The quiverfull movement takes the following Biblical passage literally:

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.

If I may be flippant for a moment, let's analyze this passage.

"Happy is the man" – well sure, he's not the one who has to change all of those diapers! (Well, in my house he is. But remember, I'm being flippant.) And since the quiver in question is, in fact, the type that arrows are stored in, how many babies can one really fit into a quiver? Here's a quiver for sale at Amazon.com that measures 13 x 3 x 2 inches. According to this site the average length of a newborn baby is 20 inches. I don't think you could fit more than one kid in a quiver.

Now, I apologize if that offends anyone, that's not my intention. But it does illustrate something that I find difficult to understand about the quiverfull movement. If you are taking this particular Biblical passage literally, well, put the kids in a quiver! And if not, then you really AREN'T taking the passage literally. Right?

Personally I think there is some validity to the argument made by many commenters on Sodahead that having that many children is a bit selfish and irresponsible. I respect other people's religious beliefs. But is there a point when those beliefs start to negatively impact the rest of the world? On the other hand, this isn't China. Everyone is entitled to have as many kids as they want to. Or, depending on your beliefs, that God wants you to. For me, two is enough; now that I’m a parent, "Eight is Enough" is basically a horror film. (I kid, of course.)

Do people with tons of kids bother you? Or is it none of our business?

Source: Sodahead

Image: People via Babble

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

Mini Baby Sculptures Not Edible, Selling Like Hotcakes

Are You Cutting Back This Holiday Season?

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Indiana Planned Parenthood Sells Gift Certificates

Brett Singer — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

From the Chicago Tribune:

"What do you get the person who has everything—except adequate health insurance? If you live in Indiana, consider this offering from the state's Planned Parenthood affiliate: gift certificates in $25 increments."

In news even less surprising than Clay Aiken coming out of the closet, anti-choice groups are not happy. The Tribune quotes Jim Sedlak, who is with both the American Life League and Stop Planned Parenthood (where DOES he find the time?) as saying that the gift cards are just PP's "annual [attack] on the Christian community at Christmastime...[Planned Parenthood] could easily have said, 'these certificates are not to be used for abortions.' But they intentionally chose not to do that." Because I'm sure that Planned Parenthood spends most of their time thinking about how they can ruin Christmas for Christians everywhere.

Now my initial reaction was a great big ol' "Huh?" Luckily my mother was present when I heard this news (on The Daily Show). She pointed out, as does president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana Betty Cockrum, that most of what PP does is "provide basic health care." In fact, Cockrum says that's 95 percent of what they do. Still, "a pap smear in a Pear Tree" doesn't sound very appealing.

All joking aside (you can see Jon Stewart's slightly reluctant mirth-making on this topic in the video below), I guess this isn't as weird as it sounds. It's not weirder than a doctor's office selling gift cards. Well, that would be weird too. The underlying message of providing health care is a good one. But who do you buy one of these cards for? The Duggar family? Jon and Kate? Kevin Federline? (I know, it's about health care, not just birth control. The jokes are almost too easy. If Jon Stewart can apologize, so can I!) I guess in theory you could pick one up for someone you know who doesn't have health care. But isn't that incredibly awkward? "Hi, I know you're uninsured, so I thought you could use one of these. Happy holidays!" I would love to know how many cards Planned Parenthood Indiana (who have the unfortunate acronym PPIN – say it out loud and then make a Beavis and Butthead chuckling noise) actually sells. So far, they say they've sold about twelve. This isn't Vegas, but I'm putting the over-under at 25. Anyone want to take that action?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Planned Parenthood Gift Cards

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Source: The Daily Show, Chicago Tribune

Image: PPIN

Things You Should Never Say To A Nursing Mother

Babble's Ultimate Holiday Gift Guide

Girly Gift Guide

Make Your Own Religious Doll

The Birth of the Duggar’s 18th Child Will be Televised

White House Sends Chanukah Card With Christmas Tree On It

Kevin Federline Answers To One Name: Daddy

Rite Aid Says They Will Stop Selling Expired Baby Products

Palin Urges Voters Not to Forget the "Right to Life"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Desperate times call for desperate measures. No one knows this better than the McCain campaign, which is attempting to make abortion a key issue in this year’s election, yet again. Yawn.

As Sarah Palin told Pennsylvania voters, “In times like these with wars and financial crisis, I know that it may be easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life, and it seems that our opponent kind of hopes you will forget that.”

Actually, I’m pretty sure he’s just more focused on the “wars and financial crisis”—as, apparently, are the American people. As Slate’s Melinda Henneberger points out, even people who have been single issue, anti-choice voters in the past have decided that the economy, the environment, and health care matter more than Roe v. Wade this time around.

Photo: Jim Young/Reuters

Baby Pictures: The Best Part of this Election

National Organization for Women President Endorses Palin

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:10:00 GMT

Remember that video of Sarah Palin misquoting Madeline Albright at a rally in California? Well, the faux feminism gets more and more outrageous. Guess who introduced Palin? Shelly Mandell, the president of L.A. National Organization for Women, who has endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket.

I attended the March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C. back in 2004, which Mandell organized. It was one of the most unifying, uplifting experiences of my life, to be surrounded by thousands of women peacefully demanding reproductive freedom. The fact that Mandell would go on to endorse a staunchly anti-choice presidential ticket is not the only reason her judgment should be seriously questioned. Jezebel has done some digging on Mandell and it turns out that she’s got some skeletons in her closet, including helping to get a fellow NOW rising star arrested.

In her introduction for Palin, Mandell pointed out that Palin will be a champion for Title IX because she plays sports. I'm all for Title IX, but will having an athletic woman in office help other women when her running mate opposes equal pay, as McCain has already done? Will the fact that Palin played basketball in college help women when she fights to make abortion illegal even in the case of incest or rape?

If it were up to Mandell, the National Organization for Women would need to change its name to the National Organization for Powerful People with Female Genitalia. Fortunately, it’s not up to Mandell. The California NOW president has issued a statement that says, in part, “I can assure you that there is no local or state affiliate of NOW, including LA NOW, which endorses or supports the McCain/Palin ticket.”

Photo: Jezebel

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

Hillary Clinton on Repro Rights

Brett Singer — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton (actually, its Hillary Rodham Clinton again; not sure if she used the middle name while she was still a Presidential candidate) and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood had an Op-Ed piece in the Times a couple of days ago that I thought would be of interest.

The Op-Ed discusses, "a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would…require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception."

A clear definition of abortion is left out, which means it is open to the interpretation of the health care provider. "The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?"

"The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25," which is just a couple of days away. If you feel strongly about this issue, call your Senator or Congressperson.

Source: NYTimes

UPDATE: Tainted Milk Tally tops 50,000

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

Preventing Teen Pregnancy, One Tick at a Time

Second Best for the Hard-to-Adopt?

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Babies R Us tells breastfeeding mother to get out

Mom leaves kids in a Jersey parking lot

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:22:00 GMT

The popular new blog “What to Expect When You’re Aborting” may be the worst thing that’s happened to the choice movement since Sarah Palin. And, in a shout-out that promises to make anti-choice Republicans proud, the writer thanks her “lefty parents” for forming her beliefs.

The anonymous blogger is an anti-choice caricature of the kind of woman who would choose to have an abortion. She is a financially stable white woman in her early twenties; she has been on the pill since she was 13, though she has been "pretty f***ing lax" about it; she glorifies alcohol consumption (beginning her description of the day of her abortion with the headline, “Let’s get some cocktails and de-brief, shall we?”); and she takes glee in parading her hatred for all religion. I don’t have a problem with any of these things in and of themselves—I just don’t want this young woman to be the spokesperson for reproductive rights.

When the blogger sees her fetus, which she refers to as “Tumor,” in a sonogram, she writes, “This was not my Juno moment, where all of a sudden I bit my lower lip and recognized the ‘life’ inside of me. If I could have I would have ripped the f***ing thing our [sic] with my bear [sic] hands on the spot.” She is only concerned that the “tumor’s freakshow head” will mean she’ll be in more pain during the procedure.

The way a woman reacts to a pregnancy is entirely personal: she may feel nothing but relief to have an abortion, or she may decide, at 16, to become a mother. But I don’t want to hear a callous woman broadcasting her hatred of her fetus as an example of why reproductive rights are important, any more than I want to hear an evangelical teenage mom self-righteously defend her choice as heroic or moral.

This blogger, not surprisingly, minces no words in expressing her rather juvenile hatred for the “culture warriors.” She’s got no time for intelligently discussing policy issues (though she does occasionally include a meaningful quote from more nuanced thinkers); she just loathes the bastards and she takes joy in making that perfectly clear, entirely unaware that she is only giving anti-choice activists lots of grist for the self-righteous hatred mill.

This blog epitomizes my concern about the attitude amongst young people that it’s cool not to care too much about anything. If this is what teenage girls stumble upon on the Internet as they try to navigate the very difficult questions surrounding sex and relationships, parents need to work doubly hard to raise thoughtful, intelligent young women.

Photo: What to Expect When You're Aborting

Can a Presidential Candidate Be a Family Man?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:30:00 GMT

I can’t help noticing that the announcement of McCain’s vice presidential pick has conveniently upstaged all reports of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (which you can watch here).

While I, too, am shocked and fascinated by the fact that McCain’s running mate is an inexperienced, staunchly anti-choice woman whom only he’s only met one time, let’s not forget to keep our eyes on Obama and Biden.

Much of the reports on Palin have focused, on the one hand, on her decision not to abort her child with down’s syndrome (if this makes her a hero, our nation has set the bar abysmally low), and on questions about her commitment to her five children, including an infant, on the other hand. So, if we’re going to judge Palin’s parenting record, what do we know about Obama’s? Obama has repeatedly urged parents to be more involved in their children’s lives, and his own interactions with his daughters Sasha and Malia indicate that he is truly a devoted, loving father.

This short video from the DNC shows the Obama family chatting, albeit in a very stilted environment. While the strong love amongst the Obamas is clear, one could argue that the children of any presidential nominee will inevitably suffer as their parents are consumed by the campaign. What do you think—is it possible to compete for the White House while putting your children first?

Photo: BrotherPeaceMaker