Read all about it. A woman, who became a man, and then got pregnant. Choice really is our culture’s highest value, even when it looks just plain ole’ crazy:

Mr. Hope said he was worried the procedure, done with the patient in stirrups, might be a little “feminizing,” but said clinic staff acted sensitively to the situation.

You don’t say.

I liked this girl’s description of her abortion at 19. From Salon, which I put up front, since that ain’t no pro-life web site. This description here is my fear for every girl who is too young to have a baby, but too young to know that she’ll hit a point maybe ten, maybe 15 years down the line, when she’ll know what she did and regret it. I try, in fumbling, inadequate ways, to tell young audiences that this could well be the outcome. But maybe you need to actually have had an abortion for it to carry weight:

It won’t be until over a decade later, when I am well into the actual world of parenthood, frazzled and overwhelmed with love and impatience for the tiny creature I have created, that I will realize that if I had actually had a baby at age nineteen it might have been the very thing that would have kept me from the years and years of misery and destruction ahead of me. It won’t be until I am finally a mother myself, and not until my cheek rests against my child’s soft downy head, that I will realize the bleakness of what I did all those years before.

There really is so much good stuff here about Planned Parenthood and Komen, all in that humorous way that only Mark Steyn can pull off. Enjoy. My favourite part:

In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. 

The Conservatives have neatly painted themselves into a corner on allowing any freedom of expression on the abortion debate. Sure, backbenchers are free to bring it up, but Their Leader has really done a number on this one. Why do I bring this up? Because of this column. I tend to agree with Matt Gurney:

The Tories decided to just pre-empt it all by committing to not reopen the debate, period. It was broad, and it helped silence the critics — sort of — but also painted them into a corner. They can’t really do a single thing about abortion without being justifiably accused of reneging.

He goes on to say:

There’s an argument to be made that on an issue like this, there’s a moral imperative to do something regardless of past promises. But I’m not holding my breath.

And of course there is, but our Prime Minister knew that before he started in with this “we will not re-open the debate” zombie-like meme. He could have done just as well by declaring his bias to be “we will allow for freedom of speech” (who is against freedom of speech? But he chose not to do that.)

I’m quite OK with saying that the time is not now for the political debate. Furthermore, we still need to loosen the stranglehold of radical feminism on the media. So much of what pro-lifers say, think and believe is still twisted beyond recognition, the National Post being a fantastic exception for the freedom they allow. So there’s hope, but I’d wait it out for a bit of a fairer playing field.

Read all about this, here.

The bulk of PP’s breast-health work is simply referring their clients to outside facilities. “Sorry, no help for you here.” In fact yesterday, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson they halted funding to PP for this very reason. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

The spin continues.

This is getting convoluted. Planned Parenthood has spun this story hard, and now Komen readjusting their funding schedule is resulting in Planned Parenthood getting additional donations from the likes of Lance Armstrong. Problem is that since Komen is clearly still giving money to Planned Parenthood, pro-lifers can’t step up and offer them cash to encourage them in their withdrawal of funds from Planned Parenthood. Because they didn’t.

I think Planned Parenthood doth protest too much. They are so up in arms over this Komen thing because they are on the brink, fighting for their lives. (Lives of unborn children, not so much.)

Hello ProWomanProLife readers! It has been a long while since we introduced a new blogger here. But it is my great honour to welcome Natalie Hudson Sonnen. You can read more about her journey, here. She is yet another smart, savvy, confident, well-spoken woman who is pro-life (of course). She is also, as I have gotten to know her here in Ottawa, very kind and fun. Welcome, Natalie!

…then we are all supposed to find things very difficult too.

Watch this clip about the Komen Foundation coming under heavy fire for withdrawing funding (or, possibly not) from Planned Parenthood. Incidentally, you might catch the part where Nancy Brinker of Komen points out that Planned Parenthood sends women elsewhere for breast cancer screening and that they want to be directly in contact with those agencies. Makes sense. But apparently incomprehensible to Andrea Mitchell, the interviewer.

Here’s the thing. Planned Parenthood may yet be funded by Komen. So it’s hard to see what the story is, other than the media having histrionics.

_____________________

Update: About 30 seconds after publishing this post, I got word of this petition. I stand with Komen. I’ll sign it, and I think you should too. Whether or not Planned Parenthood continues to receive their funding in the future is irrelevant. The fact is, they are taking substantial flak for something they have done right now, and they ought to be aware that many people appreciate it.

Remember when Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness“? “Truthiness is a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.”

I now coin the word “choiciness.” Same idea. Choiciness is a choice that a person defends vehemently because it “feels right” and “sounds good” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

How did I come to coin this word? After discussing abortion with two Carleton University students on campus radio yesterday for an hour.

Upstanding young people of good will, I must hasten to add.

But the gist of the conversation was this: Abortion is bad. It should not be used as birth control. It can cause harm. But it must remain a choice.

I don’t actually disagree all too vehemently. It must not remain a choice in our minds and hearts, but people are certainly free to make their own monumental life errors.

They were truly hung up on the legislative side of things. But given how hung up they were on that, they couldn’t even come forward and say abortion is a terrible choice.

At the outset I explained that I believe in a “Canada without abortion. By choice.” And the host said, so how does that make you different from pro-choicers?

It makes me very different, because I can identify that abortion is a horrible, terrible, life-ending choice that is incompatible with human dignity and true concepts of freedom. Some things are not a choice. And whether or not the state tells me there is a law on this matter, I will always know it is wrong. It’s not confusing. There’s no debate about when life begins.

I was there with a Catholic chaplain on campus, who tried his darndest to explain concepts of what true freedom, true love and community mean from a Christian perspective. It all made sense to me, and I would have liked to hear more. But the worldview is so substantially different from the one that says FREE CHOICE IS OUR HIGHEST VALUE, that I fear it fell on deaf ears.They should interview him, one on one, about the worldview stuff. Would be interesting.

I remain optimistic, though. Because even these ardent supporters of choice were not ardent supports of abortion, and that came through loud and clear.

This is good news, and might even give our Canadian government some chutzpah when it comes to further cuts to Planned Parenthood here.