Tag Archives: Planned Parenthood

News

Do Republicans do anything about de-funding Planned Parenthood?

6 Comments
Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood
Young pro-life women protest Planned Parenthood

I keep getting comments from people on the blog and on the blog’s Facebook page saying that Republicans never do anything about de-funding Planned Parenthood. Is that true? Or is this belief just held in ignorance by people who don’t follow legislation very closely? Let’s take a look at a vote that’s happening today in the Senate.

Life News reports:

The Senate will cast a vote on Monday to try to break the Democrat filibuster against a bill to stop infanticide.

As LifeNews reported, pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray blocked a vote on a bill from pro-life Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska that would stop infanticide nationwide. And in the House, Democrats have blocked a request by Republicans to vote on a bill that would stop infanticide a total of six times.

Earlier this month. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse had wanted to vote on a bill to protect babies born alive after failed abortions.

The Senate vote would have come days after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law new legislation that allows abortions up to birth and after Virginia Governor Ralph Northam backed infanticide during a radio interview — saying that he’s perfectly content if doctors and parents discuss letting disabled babies die after birth.

Sasse asked of the Senate for unanimous consent to vote on legislation that would offer them appropriate Medical Care and treatment.

However, speaking on behalf of pro-abortion Senate Democrats, pro-abortion Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, stood up and objected to the vote.

The truth is, the House Republicans DID pass some pro-life legislation from 2016-2018. Some of it got signed into law, but most of it died in the Senate, because of the Democrats. 

Also, in the Senate, the new Senator from Tennessee (Marsha Blackburn) has already introduced a new piece of legislation designed to stop taxpayer-funding of abortion. The bill is sponsored by 25 other Republican senators.

Excerpt:

Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced her first bill in the Senate. The proposed law, S. 105, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, is a counterpart to a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to deny funding to abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood.

[…]”Today, I introduced my first bill in the United States Senate, S. 105, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which strips all abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, of federal funding,” she wrote. “Tennesseans and the American people do not want their tax dollars funding abortions. They have made this position clear time and again. Hardworking taxpayers do not want to subsidize the business of abortion providers and entities such as Planned Parenthood.”

The bill has not yet passed the Senate, which is the first step in making it law.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Tennessee Republicans are advancing a bill designed to ban all abortions after 6 weeks:

Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill Wednesday to protect unborn babies from abortion once they have a detectable heartbeat.

State House Bill 77, sponsored by Rep. Micah Van Huss, would protect almost all unborn babies in Tennessee by prohibiting abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks. Exceptions would be allowed for medical emergencies. Violators could be charged with a felony and face up to 15 years in prison.

The state’s moderate Republican governor Bill Lee has already promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Meanwhile, President Trump is doing his part to defund Planned Parenthood as much as he can using administrative power.

Life News reports:

President Donald Trump today finalized an administrative rule that would partially defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and deprive it of as much as $60 million in taxpayer dollars. This action adds to President Trump’s record of defunding the Planned Parenthood abortion company.

The abortion chain receives about $50 million to $60 million in Title X funds annually, but that could change now that the new rules are being implemented. The administration’s changes to Title X family planning grants have angered the abortion chain Planned Parenthood, prompting a lawsuit, but they provide hope for life-affirming pregnancy centers, which can now compete with the abortion giant for the federal funds.

There really isn’t any point in rank-and-file Republicans complaining about elected Republican legislators. They are doing their jobs of introducing legislation. Sometimes, the legislation passes. Sometimes it’s defeated. The outcome of these votes depends on whether we elect enough pro-life Republicans. Saying that “Republicans do nothing to stop abortion” is not only factually incorrect, but it is actually pro-abortion, because it discourages Republican voters from donating and working hard to be involved in the political process.

In my experience, people who say things like this are cynical losers who have failed at life. Their fatalistic pessimistic outlook makes them feel in control. They justify their inactivity by warning others not to try because the system is rigged. We should oppose these ignorant, conspiracy-minded losers whenever they open their mouths.

Polemics

Abortion debate: a secular case against legalized abortion

21 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against gay marriage is here.

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

  1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
  2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
  3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here. An unborn child cannot be the woman’s own body, because then the woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes and two different DNA signatures. When you have two different human DNA signatures, you have two different humans.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. Is there such a justification for abortion? One of the best known attempts to justify abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

Here is the best book for beginners on the pro-life view.

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.

News

CDC reports: STD rates hit all-time high for the fourth straight year

4 Comments
Preliminary CDC numbers for STDs in 2017
Preliminary CDC numbers for STDs in 2017

I’ve been blogging about skyrocketing rates of sexually-transmitted-diseases for the last few years, and particularly how it impacts high risk groups, e.g. – men who have sex with men. The attitude that the culture is taking towards this is to not make any moral judgments, but someone is going to have to pay for all the health care that is required to “fix” this problem.

Fox News reports on the latest numbers:

Sexually-transmitted diseases continue to hit all-time highs in the U.S. with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reporting a 10 percent spike for chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in 2017. The federal health agency said in a report released Tuesday that the numbers, which include nearly 2.3 million new cases of the aforementioned diseases, reflect a “steep, sustained increase” in STDs since 2013.

“We’re sliding backward,” Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, said. “It is evident the systems that identify, treat and ultimately prevent STDs are strained to near-breaking point.”

The data, which was presented at the 2018 STD Prevention Conference, found a 67 percent increase in gonorrhea diagnoses, which officials sounded alarm over due to the growing threat of untreatable strains.

The CDC gives us the numbers well enough, but like all government agencies, their attitude is not to tell the selfish adults to behave morally. They blame “stigma and discrimination” for the rise in STDs, and recommend more government as the solution. I.e. – they think that people who disapprove of sex outside of marriage are to blame for the skyrocketing rates of STDs. If we all stopped making the irresponsible, reckless people feel bad with our ignorant moral judgments, then the STD problem would immediately be solved.

Anyway, here is an article that talks about untreatable strains of gonorrhea in particular:

Scientists have found a “superbug” strain of gonorrhea in Japan that is resistant to all recommended antibiotics and say it could transform a once easily treatable infection into a global public health threat.

The new strain of the sexually transmitted disease — called H041 — cannot be killed by any currently recommended treatments for gonorrhea, leaving doctors with no other option than to try medicines so far untested against the disease.

[…]Gonorrhea is a bacterial sexually transmitted infection and if left untreated can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility in women.

British scientists said last year that there was a real risk of gonorrhea becoming a superbug — a bacteria that has mutated and become resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics — after increasing reports of gonorrhea drug resistance emerged in Hong Kong, China, Australia and other parts of Asia.

Now, I know it’s tempting (for some people who like tolerance) to say that we should let people do whatever they want to do, and not judge them. After all, we can just take some money from the wealthy in order to solve these problems without making anyone feel bad. I hear this a lot from the the “don’t judge” crowd. But this time, it looks like no amount of money is going to solve this problem, and maybe the judgers were right to warn.

Syphilis is also a problem in certain high risk groups:

The sometimes-deadly disease syphilis is exploding in the United States, with most of the increase since 1995 among men who have sex with men (MSM), according to a new report from the Atlanta-based Center for Disease Control (CDC).

As recently as 2000, researchers believed the total elimination of syphilis was within reach. The recent dramatic increases in infections, coupled with the observation that syphilis closely tracks with other diseases like AIDS, have the medical and scientific community deeply concerned. The CDC report considers “the increase in syphilis among MSM is a major public health concern.”

According to the report, “During 2005-2013, the number of primary and secondary syphilis cases reported each year in the United States nearly doubled, from 8,724 to 16,663; the annual rate increased from 2.9 to 5.3 cases per 100,000 population.”

The report also says that “men contributed an increasing proportion of cases, accounting for 91.1% of all primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2013.” Most of the increases came from men who have sex with men, which were responsible for 77% of cases in 2009 but 83.9% in 2012, what the report calls “the vast majority of male… syphilis cases.”

HIV is also a problem for this same group:

A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).

“Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States,” the fact sheet states.

We do have certain segments of the population who think that normal sexuality means having sex with dozens, hundreds and even thousands of partners. Just on the grounds of “they’re hot”. And naturally, these people are at higher risk for STDs.