Awesome!

The House of Representatives Friday passed a measure to end federal funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood a day after Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., brought the chamber to stunned silence after describing her own personal experience with abortion.

Friday afternoon, the House passed the amendment by a vote of 240-185 with one member voting present. The House must still vote for final passage on the underlying spending bill before the cuts head to the Senate for a possible vote later this month.

I’m not an expert on US federal law-making, and I’d be grateful if someone who knows better than I do (which wouldn’t narrow the field much) would explain and/or correct me if I’m wrong. Send me an email or write in the comments. My impression is that this measure will not go through, but I could be wrong. Still, I like the fact that politicians in the House of Representatives are not only willing to debate the issue, but to vote on it as well. And the sky didn’t fall on their heads. Canadian politicians: are you watching?

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zCJigrTb9Q]

An excellent take-down, here.

_____________________

Andrea adds: There’s something wrong with this ad. (Beyond the obvious.) I mean that for what they are trying to do they don’t do it well. The high heels and party dress? Walking down that hallway? It just doesn’t create the atmosphere of fear they are looking for. And that’s not just me saying it’s a big ole’ piece of propaganda, because initially, when I watched it I had no idea what I was in for. (Brigitte, you’ll recall, also posted the Old Spice commercials) so I’d like to think that at least for a few short seconds I had an open mind.

This is an interesting story:

A Chicago medical center has found itself in a controversial position, as the first Roman Catholic hospital in the country to help women halt an abortion midway through the process.

Resurrection Medical Center began the new practice after pro-life activists started bringing in women who, in the second trimester of their pregnancy, had gone to a clinic for an abortion and then changed their minds. The process used by the clinic for a second trimester pregnancy takes 2-3 days to complete, so by stopping the process early on, Resurrection doctors are hoping to preserve the pregnancy.

[…]

A procedure for late-term abortions, which uses a dried seaweed called laminaria, is new and still unknown by many medical personnel. “They put in this so-called laminaria, which is made from seaweed, and they insert it into the cervix…and the concept is that, this seaweed will soften the cervix… and then after a period of time, 12 to 24 hours, sometimes longer, they take the woman back and they look in her cervix again to see if she’s ready to have that abortion” said Doctor Shu Boung Chan, the chairman of quality at Resurrection Hospital.

Laminaria, he explains, is like a thin rod made of dried kelp that is inserted like a tampon. The laminaria is supposed to expand and dilate the cervix. Once brought to Resurrection, the laminaria is removed, with the hope the cervix will return to its normal state, saving the fetus.

Critics worry the hospital’s efforts could actually cause medical problems for the pregnant woman, and may result in a miscarriage.

Two things. First: Seaweed? Ew. Second: People worry that trying to reverse an abortion might result in a miscarriage? Huh?

There’s more:

Resurrection CEO Sister Donna Marie Wolowicki said hospital staff won’t try to persuade or coerce a woman either way.

“We have our staff prepared to walk her into a private area to make sure that she has the opportunity to share what she really wants us to do or how to help her and what she understands. The first thing we want to make sure is that she understands what’s happened to her thus far we want her to understand about her pregnancy … how far she is along with the pregnancy and what we can do to help her if she really wants us to stop this abortive process … We want it to be a free decision by her.”

[…]

Planned Parenthood of Illinois supports the hospital’s way of handling the situation. Vice President for Public Policy, Pamela Sutherland, said that as long as the women weren’t coerced into changing their minds, it seems they were treated well.

“Based on the statements made by Resurrection …regarding women who come to them to interrupt a second-trimester abortion in process, Planned Parenthood of Illinois agrees with the Hospital’s Standard of Care. We are very pleased that they are counseling women to be sure women are comfortable with their decision. And we support what we also consider to be good medical practice.”

That’s nice – we’re now at the point where a Catholic hospital has to be extra careful not to appear to be putting any pressure at all on women who are coming to them hoping their abortion can be reversed. And the journalist has to make sure to get a quote from Planned Parenthood, as though PP was some kind of unbiased authority suitable to making pronouncements on what constituted proper medical treatment at an actual hospital?

Give me a break!

[h/t]

Trust Mark Steyn to put it just so.

Oh. Well, “Dr” Gosnell’s just one rogue abortionist. How about the “right to choose” over at Planned Parenthood? There are a whole range of choices – not so much for the illegally smuggled underage foreign sex slave, but at least for her pimp. If you’re a middle-aged guy running a child-sex business, you have the “right to choose” what’s best for that 13-year old Venezuelan hottie you brought over a couple weeks back. As the Falls Church clinic assures him: “We don’t necessarily look at the legal status, like I said.”

That’s good to know. With Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child prostitution, my friend Rich Lowry argued that the back alley is back: “Legal abortion was supposed to end “back-alley abortions,” both their dangers and their entanglements with shady characters. But the practice and the mores of the back alley are with us still, tolerated by people for whom the ready provision of abortion trumps all else.”

Rich is right. Ever since Roe v Wade, proponents of a woman’s “right to choose” have warned us against going back to the bad old days of rusty coat hangers and unsterilized instruments from money-grubbing butchers on the wrong side of town. Now, happily, the back alley is on the main drag, and with a state permit framed on the wall.

[h/t]

There are people who think this is OK?

A class of grade eight students in southern Sweden was asked to write essays about their sexual fantasies and experiences for a school assignment.

A teacher from the school expressed surprise that the assignment had upset parents, claiming that most students appreciated the exercise, which was part of a cooperative effort between the biology, sex and well being, and Swedish-language departments.

However, Maria Ahnlund told the newspaper she took the criticism “very seriously” and said she would review the assignment next year to see if there is a more “neutral” approach to the topic.

A spokesperson for teachers’ union Lärarförbundet emphasised the importance of addressing student concerns.

“Obviously, if students feel like the assignment violated their privacy, that criticism must be taken seriously,” Lärarförbundet spokesperson Claes Nyberg told The Local.

“Just the thought that a teacher would sit and ask about their sexual fantasies makes me sick,” one parent told the local Ystads Allehanda newspaper.

The comments came after a class consisting primarily of 14-year-old students from the Kastanje school in Tomelilla received a rather unusual writing assignment for their Swedish lesson.

Entitled “The First Time” (Första gången), the assignment instructed students to imagine they were talking to a close friend and write about the past sexual escapades they might divulge in confidence.

Other options included making up a story about their first sexual experience, writing about the first time they had sex or how they hoped their first time would be.

Getting high marks required writing at least a half page and with “passion,” according to the parent. The assignment made several students so uncomfortable, they told their parents about the request to write sexually themed essays.

[…]

A teacher from the school expressed surprise that the assignment had upset parents, claiming that most students appreciated the exercise, which was part of a cooperative effort between the biology, sex and well being, and Swedish-language departments.

However, Maria Ahnlund told the newspaper she took the criticism “very seriously” and said she would review the assignment next year to see if there is a more “neutral” approach to the topic.

A spokesperson for teachers’ union Lärarförbundet emphasised the importance of addressing student concerns.

“Obviously, if students feel like the assignment violated their privacy, that criticism must be taken seriously,” Lärarförbundet spokesperson Claes Nyberg told The Local.

A more neutral approach, one that doesn’t violate the students’ privacy, would be OK, then?

__________________

Andrea adds: “A teacher from the school expressed surprise that the assignment had upset parents…” You asked 14-year-olds to describe sexual fantasies, in writing, with passion. And nothing struck you as being possibly upsetting. What to say?

The Muslim man accused of murdering and beheading his wife in Buffalo was convicted of second-degree murder. He faces life in prison. I hope he gets it.

Thanks to my friend Mr. T (he knows who he is) for drawing my attention to this funny but slightly off-colour Super Bowl ad. Guys, whatever you do, don’t do that. You’re welcome!

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8VBQioFH44&feature=player_embedded]

_____________________

Andrea adds: Funny. And who says men and women are the same? I’m not clear what the ad is for, though. “We’ll write your Valentine’s messages for you?” That strikes me as (another) way to lose points with your wife/girlfriend. (“You couldn’t think of anything nice to say all on your own?”)

Oh sorry. Did I just give away the punchline?

You may have read the story of the 100 healthy sled dogs that were destroyed in British Columbia for business reasons. People are shocked, of course. Why, killing healthy dogs just like that, imagine!

So of course along came a scholar with the idea of conferring some kind of status on our pets, so as to prevent humans from treating them like vulgar property and disposing of them pretty much at will.

I think it’s a brilliant idea, except I’d start with making sure all human beings are covered before moving on to pets.

Boy, this is sad. (And – gentle warning – verbally graphic and explicit.)

[h/t]

_________________

Andrea adds WAY MORE THAN A GENTLE WARNING. This article is VERY EXPLICIT. And depressing. But I didn’t make it through because I found it too explicit. So I just thought I’d add that.

_________________

Brigitte is all blushing now: Yes, sorry – I should have been clearer. But you know, this sort of stuff is all over the place, very much including in your average teenager’s online life (there’s a companion story on that, here – also very explicit verbally and visually, and depressing to boot, so be warned). We’re talking junior high kids, not college-age young adults (which would be bad enough). I wish we could safely ignore this stuff. But I don’t think we can afford to.

These people say so:

RedState has uncovered evidence – confirmed by the CDC’s own press office – that the Obama administration is deliberately playing “hide the ball” on nationwide abortion statistics. For apparently the first time in 40 years, the CDC’s annual “Abortion Surveillance Report” was not published, and there are “no plans” for the data to be produced at this time.

Whatever you feel about abortion and its legality, virtually all people agree that transparency and factual accuracy are important in the abortion debate. That is why even Planned Parenthood spends a substantial amount of money each year funding the Guttmacher Institute’s studies on abortion statistics. While pro-life groups have long contended that Guttmacher’s methods systematically undercount abortions, that is beside the point; the Guttmacher studies have long provided a consistent source for studying abortion trends over time. Which aggregate data, we re-emphasize, is important not only for both sides of the ideological debate, but is also important medical information.

Yet, in the wake of numerous damaging disclosures about unscrupulous practices by abortionists (from Kermit Gosnell to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country), the Obama Administration has apparently ordered that the only Federal government report on abortion statistics – again, a report that has run continuously for 40 years – be deep-sixed. The immediate question this raises is: what is the Obama administration trying to hide?

_____________________

Andrea wonders: Is something similar happening in Canada?