Quote of the Day

In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.
— James Madison (Federalist No. 14, 30 November 1787)
Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 14

RU ready for an investigation of RU-486?

Read the whole article

Last week, the US Senate unanimously approved SC Republican Jim DeMint’s amendment to the FDA reauthorization bill stating the agency must have risk assessment and solution strategies in place with the manufacturer of RU-486 within seven months after the bill takes effect.

The abortion industry, mindless of women’s health if it interferes with abortion, bulldozed FDA approval of RU-486 during the waning Clinton days in 2000 via an acceleration process supposed to be reserved for “life-threatening illnesses.”

Since its rush approval, RU-486 has been linked to the deaths of at least seven American women, most due to toxic shock syndrome from the deadly bactium Clostridium sordellii, which may be an emerging risk of using RU-486.

The much publicized death of 18-year-old Holly Patterson in 2003 from RU-486 should have moved the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, but it did not. It merely added a list of risks to RU-486’s label.

The FDA has now received reports of 1,050 additional women who experienced adverse events from the RU-486 regimen including 9 life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection, according to DeMint.

Pro-lifers warned about the risks of RU-486 when it was approved in a blatantly political decision back in 2000, but were shouted down in a cry of women’s rights. As my prior post showed, pro-abortionists don’t worry so much about unborn women’s right to life; we see here they don’t worry so much about born women’s right to life if it would impede the spread of free abortion.

Home Gender Test Will Lead to Sex-Selection Abortion, Experts Warn

Home Gender Test Will Lead to Sex-Selection Abortion, Experts Warn

A new DNA test that parents can use at home to determine the sex of their unborn child in the early weeks of pregnancy is being condemned as a sex-selection abortion tool by concerned pro-life leaders and medical professionals.

Dr. Carol Cooper, writing for the Sun, also said she fears the early gender test will lead to abortions “just because the baby is the ‘wrong’ sex.”

“[Y]ou have to ask yourself why parents need this test. You don’t have to decorate the nursery or buy baby-grows when six weeks pregnant. But there’s still plenty of time to consider abortion. Those with the money can have this test and have the girl or boy they want. Those without money have to leave it to nature.”

It costs parents about £4,000 to have the gender-determination test done.

I have no doubt that these experts are right: unborn baby girls will be killed as a result of this test, but I can’t buy the argument that the tests should therefore be banned. There are legitimate, non-lethal reasons for this test, so we can’t ban the test on the claim that someone might misuse them. By that logic, we’d have to ban any number of things: kitchen knives, automobiles, to name just a few common items no one would think to ban. So, as unfortunate as it is that some might use this as a precursor to murder, banning them would be wrong.

Home Gender Test Will Lead to Sex-Selection Abortion, Experts Warn

Home Gender Test Will Lead to Sex-Selection Abortion, Experts Warn

A new DNA test that parents can use at home to determine the sex of their unborn child in the early weeks of pregnancy is being condemned as a sex-selection abortion tool by concerned pro-life leaders and medical professionals.

Dr. Carol Cooper, writing for the Sun, also said she fears the early gender test will lead to abortions “just because the baby is the ‘wrong’ sex.”

“[Y]ou have to ask yourself why parents need this test. You don’t have to decorate the nursery or buy baby-grows when six weeks pregnant. But there’s still plenty of time to consider abortion. Those with the money can have this test and have the girl or boy they want. Those without money have to leave it to nature.”

It costs parents about £4,000 to have the gender-determination test done.

I have no doubt that these experts are right: unborn baby girls will be killed as a result of this test, but I can’t buy the argument that the tests should therefore be banned. There are legitimate, non-lethal reasons for this test, so we can’t ban the test on the claim that someone might misuse them. By that logic, we’d have to ban any number of things: kitchen knives, automobiles, to name just a few common items no one would think to ban. So, as unfortunate as it is that some might use this as a precursor to murder, banning them would be wrong.

End Date Set for “Lost”

Read the whole article

Three more seasons, 16 episodes each. I’d rather they only go two more, but longer seasons. Only showing sixteen uninterrupted episodes per season means we’ll go about nine months between episodes at some points. Ugh….

Plus, I don’t want to have wait until next decade to figure out what the #$@#@ is happening on that freaky island.

Quote-a-palooza

“The Democrats deliberately distort their intentions in the current debate on the Iraq War. They say their withdrawal timetable will ‘end the war’ – but it’s ludicrous to suggest that removal of U.S. troops will suddenly stop the fighting. Concerning so-called insurgents, everyone agrees they are ruthless, barbaric killers. So what will they do when Americans leave? Will bloodthirsty bad-guys suddenly turn into pacifists- or decide to retire from their murderous ways? Will they abandon sectarian hatreds and suddenly embrace their Iraqi enemies? General Petraeus, U.S. Commander in Iraq, says American withdrawal would lead to an ‘increase in sectarian violence… It can get much, much worse.’ Islamo-Nazis in Iraq would feel powerfully encouraged not mollified, by removal of the one force strong enough to contain them: the U.S. military. Democratic surrender timetables won’t ‘end the war’ – they’ll only make it longer and more bloody, necessitating the ultimate return of American forces at an even higher cost.” – Michael Medved

“The American public is not tired of the war; they are tired of believing that they are losing. They are tired of the daily drumbeat of pessimism and defeat promoted daily by our media and by some in our Congress. They don’t understand that building a democracy is a slow process that takes years, that victory in Iraq will be more like the fall of communism than like VE day in 1945. Like it or not, it is incumbent upon us in the military to correct this misrepresentation of our efforts. We have a duty to convince the American public why we must stay and finish the mission. Should we have to? Did we sign up to do that? The answers are no and yes, respectively. No we shouldn’t have to ask to be allowed to win a war, but yes we signed up to complete a mission. No whining allowed… It is not enough that we are making progress here in Iraq. We must make progress at home as well to ensure we are given the funds, support and time needed to finish the job. There is no doubt that we can create a stable democracy in Iraq- if we have courage enough to do so.” – Lt. Jason Nichols, founder of AppealForCourage.org

“Biblical teaching is clear: God intends government to use law to enforce morality. Informed Christian people are essential to that process because the concept of justice that grounds good government can be twisted by evil men in power. If the Church doesn’t stand in the gap giving substance to the words ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ then nothing prevents leadership from reversing the definitions, praising evil and punishing good. Tragically, this is already happening… Little by little, though, more things have been included under the broad rubric of ‘politics.’ One by one the secularists co-opted the moral issues, called them political, and told us to get off of the playing field… Notice the outcome. When Christians follow a policy of ‘no politics,’ it’s easy to silence the moral voice of the Church. Simply label any issue ‘political’ and followers of Christ wave the white flag. This policy is tantamount to surrender… The myth of political passivity unwittingly makes a Christian virtue out of the vice of negligence. When we ignore our obligation to morally instruct the nation merely because someone labels it ‘politics,’ then it won’t be long before the country teems with injustice as every man simply does ‘what is right in his own eyes’.” – Gregory Koukl

“Politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality’s foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related. We need religion as a guide. We need it because we are imperfect, and our government needs the church, because only those humble enough to admit they’re sinners can bring to democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive.” – Ronald Reagan

“For the sake of argument, let’s say former CIA Director George Tenet is right in his book and that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed too hard with questionable or inaccurate intelligence because of a predisposition to go to war in Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. So what? We can’t go back and fix the mistakes of the past. Only two choices are available: victory or defeat. Let us assume the Democratic left is right and we should pull U.S. forces out as early as Oct. 1, or perhaps a few months later, but certainly before the next president takes office, because the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq has completely failed and, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, ‘the war is lost.’ What next? Does the United States not suffer a loss of credibility in the world’s eyes for again failing to finish a job it started? Do the millions who voted for the first elected government in Iraq conclude they risked their lives for nothing? What would be the consequences of pulling out before Iraq is stabilized sufficiently to stand on its own? And, most importantly, what would a U.S. retreat do to the confidence of the enemy that wishes to dominate the world by force?” – Cal Thomas