Sick:

Schoolchildren should be given compulsory lessons about the benefits of abortion, ministers' advisers on sex education claim.

Abortion should be included in teaching about sex to ensure that girls who become pregnant 'can make an informed decision' about whether to have one, they said.

The recommendation from the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy would mean - if accepted by the Government - that pupils would be taught about abortion from the age of 11.

But they could also have abortion lessons in primary schools that teach children from the age of five.

The group, which reports to Education Secretary Alan Johnson and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, has repeatedly called for sex education classes to be made compulsory and to include testing for all pupils down to the age of five.

At present only secondary schools need to provide sex education lessons, and parents have the right to withdraw their children. Primary schools must by law have a policy on 'personal, social and health education', but do not need to provide lessons.

 

Although the title of the article says that the Dutch are "considering" infanticide, apparently they've already been doing it. What they're doing now is considering specific legal regulations. But to be clear, they have already been killing babies born with disabilities.

Via NewsMax:

Infanticide used to be taboo in the Western world. But the government of the Netherlands is currently considering what many consider to be unthinkable – the creation of legal standards for pediatric euthanasia.

According to the London Times, a committee will soon be set up to regulate the practice, which doctors have quietly been performing for years in the Netherlands. Shockingly, Dutch politicians have not faced the wrath of many domestic or foreign critics.

more

The commission will likely issue regulations similar to the Groningen Protocol, a document drawn up in 2004 by the Groningen University Medical Center to establish internal guidelines for its euthanasia program that terminated the lives of 22 disabled newborns from 1997 to 2004.

As insane as this is, I didn't think it tied in to America in any way, and while it seems like a stretch at first, NewsMax makes some interesting points:

Though infant euthanasia is not yet a political issue in the United States, the arguments made by Dutch defenders of "compassionate" infanticide were echoed by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in floor debate over a federal ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003.

Clinton took issue with visual aids provided by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.. The visual aids, she said, were "deceptive" because they showed a "perfectly formed" fetus. "Where are the swollen heads?" she asked while arguing in favor of legal partial-birth abortions, "Where are the charts with fetuses with vital organs such as the heart and the lungs growing outside the body?"

In the end, Clinton said, she could not support Santorum’s legislation because it did not distinguish between healthy babies and those with "serious life-threatening abnormalities."

For his part, Sen. Santorum said he could not make such a distinction.

"What the senator from New York is asking me to do," Santorum said, "is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below protection than the perfect child."

"No," he continued, "I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are prefect, this cannot happen to you, but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The senator is right. I do not."

It is known that babies aborted in partial-birth abortions are viable and can survive outside the womb, so knowing that, is what Hillary is saying all that different from what the Dutch are doing? Just a few steps away from getting back to what the eugenics supporting founder of Planned Parenthood (American Birth Control League at the time), Margaret Sanger had in mind.

More:
Verum Serum, My Newz 'n Idea, Angel's Space, Blogicus

 

Not a lot of time here, but this is could wind up being a hugely historic turning point type of day. It's at least history making in South Dakota where virtually all abortions are now illegal. As usual this article is full of "abortion foe" terminology. I don't have a specific problem with that term, but see this post for details on terminology bias on this issue.

Anyway, I put some of the article text in bold towards the end as you can see in the desperate attempt to say that pro-lifers are "anti" something and "opponents" they combine the two and mistakenly call them "anti-abortion opponents". Anit-abortion opponents would of course actually be abortion supporters, but that's not who they were talking about. Of course liberals would argue that it's just a typo, and that may be the case, but given the history of abortion terminology bias in the media, I would guess they were just trying all they could to make the opposition to abortion sound negative (vs. saying "pro-life") that they got wrapped up and didn't realize what they said.

As I said, not much time to talk about this at the moment, but if somehow you missed the news, check it out now:

Via Reuters:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The governor of South Dakota on Monday signed into law severe restrictions on abortion, in a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of the practice 33 years ago.

Abortion foes have said they hope to use the South Dakota law to eventually bring the issue back before the high court, where they believe conservatives added to the bench by President George W. Bush in the last year could weaken or dismantle the court's landmark Roe vs Wade decision of 1973.

Supporters of Roe v. Wade have promised a legal challenge to the new South Dakota law.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds inked the measure, which had been passed by the state legislature on February 24, after a review to make sure there were no technical problems.

Rounds, who has described the legislation as a "frontal assault" on Roe v. Wade, had vetoed a similar measure two years ago, saying it would have wiped out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts.

The new law bans abortion in virtually all cases, punishing doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison.

The measure bans abortion even in cases where a woman is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of the mother. It creates a narrow exemption in cases in which a physician's effort to save a pregnant woman's life results in the accidental death or injury of her fetus.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota that provides abortions. About 800 are performed there each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota. The group has said it will challenge the law in court.

There has been a grass-roots state-by-state campaign in recent years by anti-abortion opponents to find a vehicle by which to challenge the high court's 1973 decision.

They believe an increasingly conservative court will be more disposed to dismantling the earlier decision should something like the South Dakota measure ever reach the justices.

Previous:
Mississipi House To Vote On Abortion Ban, While South Dakota Waits For Governor's Signature
South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban... Next Stop Governor Michael Rounds
South Dakota Abortion Ban Heads To Senate For VoteSouth Dakota Abortion Ban Looks Likely, Bill Moves To Senate...
BREAKING: SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE PASSES BAN ON ABORTION! WHAT SAY YOU SD SENATE?
Study On Bias: Abortion Terminology, South Dakota Bill Attempts To Ban Abortion

 

Have you been following the news on the bill that seeks to ban abortion in the state of South Dakota? It's all but a done deal now, all it needs is the governor's signature, and he's already said he's likely to sign it. If you need to catch up, read my posts about it here, here, here, and here.

Now it seems that Mississippi is playing catch up on a similar bill that would ban all abortions except when it would save the mother's life.

AP via WJLA

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi. The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: "I suspect I'll sign it."

The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate.

South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a legal showdown over Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to an abortion. The measure is awaiting Republican Gov. Mike Rounds' signature. He has said he is inclined to sign it.

Mississippi already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. It requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure.

Previous:
BREAKING: SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE PASSES BAN ON ABORTION! WHAT SAY YOU SD SENATE?
South Dakota Abortion Ban Looks Likely, Bill Moves To Senate...
South Dakota Abortion Ban Heads To Senate For Vote
South Dakota Senate Passes Abortion Ban... Next Stop Governor Michael Rounds.

 

As expected, the South Dakota Senate has passed the new abortion ban bill (via Reuters), sending it to it's final stop - the governor's desk. At this point, conventional wisdom says Governor Michael Rounds will sign this in to law officially banning abortion in the state of South Dakota. Any doctor caught performing an abortion would be charged with a felony and could be sentenced to 5 years in prison in addition to $5,000 in fines.

For background on all of this, see my previous posts:

- South Dakota Abortion Ban Heads To Senate For Vote
- South Dakota Abortion Ban Looks Likely, Bill Moves To Senate...
- BREAKING: SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE PASSES BAN ON ABORTION! WHAT SAY YOU SD SENATE?

And as usual, we've got the ridiculous "health care" comment made by some pro-death woman:

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood, which operates the sole clinic providing abortions in South Dakota.

To which I (lazily) continue to repost:

Anyway, incase anyone actually buys in to the excuse that abortions are "health care" as liberals and Democrats like to refer to it, let's agree that that is ridiculous. I just can't stand when I see Howard Dean or someone on a news program talk about women's health care to try to make abortion sound like a routine physical. "Reproductive rights" is bad enough, but "health care" is demonstrably false. Only about 6% (and I'm guess that's actually high) of abortions are for anything other than birth control:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

The reason I say that the 6% is probably high is because "risk" is a pretty broad term. That could encompass a lot of things. "Risk" operates on a scale, and these would obviously include all levels of risk.

Anyway, about 94% of abortions are then nothing more than birth control, right? Supposedly abortions are slightly down now, but the average was about 1,300,000 per year in the United States alone. What that means is that 1,222,000 children are killed in the United states every year out of convenience, not "health". And we didn't even have decades of intelligence saying these babies had weapons of mass destruction! Maybe the babies moved their WMDs to Syria too, long before we started doing surveillance. Otherwise, what is the excuse from liberals for attacking these innocent people?

"Health care"? I think not.

For further study, about a month ago I posted on the terminology bias in the media as it pertains to the abortion issue. Of course the exact numbers change by the day, considering it it based on articles indexed in Google and Yahoo! News search, but the trend always remains.

UPDATE:

Check out the Independent Conservative for a round-up related issues like some pro-life bills gaining strength in Georgia, and the possibility of forced black abortions in the Netherlands. This reminds me of the racist history of Planned Parenthood and it's founder Margaret Sanger's fondness of eugenics. Tie it in with the pseudo-forced abortions by UNFPA, the UN Population Fund who's goal it is to reduce the world's population and you have some scary things going on around us hiding behind cute names like "health care" and "family planning", when it's nothing but mass murder by those who worship Darwin above all.

 

If you've been reading RightWinged.com regularly, you know we've been following the bill in South Dakota that would ban all abortions except when the the mother's life is at risk, and that abortion performing doctors could be charged with a felony, though not the mothers. (see here and here)

Well it appears that after passing through the SD House, and then a Senate Committee, the bill has reached the floor of the state Senate:

small excerpt from NY Times article:

Lawmakers here are preparing to vote on a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota, a measure that could become the most sweeping ban approved by any state in more than a decade, those on both sides of the abortion debate say.

If the bill passes a narrowly divided Senate in a vote expected on Wednesday, and is signed by Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion, advocates of abortion rights have pledged to challenge it in court immediately — and that is precisely what the bill's supporters have in mind.

Optimistic about the recent changes on the United States Supreme Court, some abortion opponents say they have new hope that a court fight over a ban here could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal around the country.

The article goes on to discuss something one of my commenters brought up the other day... The Supreme Court isn't tilted totally our way and having this brought to them without another seat change might cause it to be shot down and deal a heavy blow to those trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned.

Some are speculating that the 85 year old John Paul Stevens may be retiring very soon leaving open yet anothe seat and that this could all come together at the perfect time. I've got to wonder a couple of things though... For starters, would Stevens retire with all this swirling around (if it comes to that)? You don't think the libs could pressure him to stay? Beyond that, you saw how viscious and psychotic the libs have been over the past nominations (or every day for a number of years really), can you imagine what they would do in a situation where it was almost certain that Roe would be overturned!?

I don't know how easy the "nuclear" option would be, because I can see these nutjob Democrats chaining themselves to the doors of the Capitol, not to mention the riots of the far left "protest" types that always show up for events like this. I think we would see some of our streets look like what we see in the Middle East over the Danish cartoons. Not a joke. These people already show up to their "rallies" with hoods and masks on, and often get violent and throw molotov cocktails. Can you imagine the desperation if Bush gets to nominate another Supreme Court Justice!?

Anyway, another annoying part of this article, but not surprising because you've always got some baby killer who says it in most abortion related articles...

"While they are making political maneuvers, we're trying to fight for the women of South Dakota," said Kate Looby, the state director of Planned Parenthood in South Dakota.

Ms. Looby said she had spent hundreds of hours meeting with lawmakers and others as a vote drew near. "I hate to envision the day when the women of South Dakota are treated differently than the women elsewhere when it comes to safe and legal health care," she said.

As I pointed out in my last post on the matter that "health care" line is the biggest load of bull. DON'T BUY IN TO IT!:

from a previous post on RightWinged.com

Anyway, incase anyone actually buys in to the excuse that abortions are "health care" as liberals and Democrats like to refer to it, let's agree that that is ridiculous. I just can't stand when I see Howard Dean or someone on a news program talk about women's health care to try to make abortion sound like a routine physical. "Reproductive rights" is bad enough, but "health care" is demonstrably false. Only about 6% (and I'm guess that's actually high) of abortions are for anything other than birth control:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

The reason I say that the 6% is probably high is because "risk" is a pretty broad term. That could encompass a lot of things. "Risk" operates on a scale, and these would obviously include all levels of risk.

Anyway, about 94% of abortions are then nothing more than birth control, right? Supposedly abortions are slightly down now, but the average was about 1,300,000 per year in the United States alone. What that means is that 1,222,000 children are killed in the United states every year out of convenience, not "health". And we didn't even have decades of intelligence saying these babies had weapons of mass destruction! Maybe the babies moved their WMDs to Syria too, long before we started doing surveillance. Otherwise, what is the excuse from liberals for attacking these innocent people?

"Health care"? I think not.

For further study, about a month ago I posted on the terminology bias in the media as it pertains to the abortion issue. Of course the exact numbers change by the day, considering it it based on articles indexed in Google and Yahoo! News search, but the trend always remains.

For now, we'll have to wait to see what happens in South Dakota today...

Open Trackbacks:
Right Wing Nation, Don Surber, Rhymes With Right, TMH's Bacon Bits, Freedom Watch USA, Blue Star Chronicles

 

You may recall my post on the South Dakota House passing a ban on abortion, a little over a week ago. The latest is that the Senate State Affairs Committee has passed it 5-1 sending it to next to the Senate for a vote. Read all about it here.

Modern science can prove that life begins at conception, legislators agreed Friday, barreling ahead with legislation they hope will entice the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse itself and outlaw abortion.

The potential challenge vehicle, HB1215, was sent 5-1 to the Senate floor by the State Affairs Committee.

The bill, which had earlier cleared the state House by a wide margin, would ban abortion in South Dakota in all instances except to save a woman's life. About 800 abortions are done each year in the state at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls.

more...

The bill would make it a felony to do an abortion, punishable by up to five years in prison. It would not, however, penalize a woman who gets an abortion.

A doctor who does an abortion to save a woman's life, either surgically or with drugs, could not be prosecuted. But the doctor would have to make reasonable attempts to save both the woman and her unborn child.

It seems more and more likely that South Dakota will in fact pass this, and abortion will be illegal in South Dakota. But no one seems sure one how this will affect Roe vs. Wade in the Supreme Court, if at all. Interestingly, there are a number of other states with similar bills in the works:

Hunt said similar legislation has been offered in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Read the whole story. This is big news!

Anyway, incase anyone actually buys in to the excuse that abortions are "health care" as liberals and Democrats like to refer to it, let's agree that that is ridiculous. I just can't stand when I see Howard Dean or someone on a news program talk about women's health care to try to make abortion sound like a routine physical. "Reproductive rights" is bad enough, but "health care" is demonstrably false. Only about 6% (and I'm guess that's actually high) of abortions are for anything other than birth control:

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

The reason I say that the 6% is probably high is because "risk" is a pretty broad term. That could encompass a lot of things. "Risk" operates on a scale, and these would obviously include all levels of risk.

Anyway, about 94% of abortions are then nothing more than birth control, right? Supposedly abortions are slightly down now, but the average was about 1,300,000 per year in the United States alone. What that means is that 1,222,000 children are killed in the United states every year out of convenience, not "health". And we didn't even have decades of intelligence saying these babies had weapons of mass destruction! Maybe the babies moved their WMDs to Syria too, long before we started doing surveillance. Otherwise, what is the excuse from liberals for attacking these innocent people?

Others:
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, A Catholic Life

 

hat tip: Drudge Report

I actually posted on this when it was "upcoming" a couple weeks ago and almost totally forgot all about it. This is potentially the real big story of the day... Not some cartoons that are just the latest excuse for Muslims to kill and destroy.

SD House Approves Abortion Ban The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

I wonder when the South Dakota Senate will vote on this.

 

***UPDATE: I'm an idiot. I just now noticed my typo in the headline. It read "March for Life Meets March For Death....". Obviously that should have been (and is now) "Walk for Life Meets March For Death", since "Walk for Life" is the actual name... Don't know if I was tired or rushing or something but I made it "March For Life" and I wanted to clear that up.
-Randy

I linked to this in an update to my post about media bias as it pertains to abortion issue terminology, but I decided it deserved it's own post. I'll try to keep from rambling here, and just let the pictures speak for themselves, but Michelle Malkin is linking to a great photo essay by "zombie" of a Walk for Life march and the counter-demonstration (March for Death?) that were held in San Francisco this past Saturday. Go see the looniest the left has to offer.

Reverse Vampyr is blogging this, as is as Right Spin. Right Spin also dug up some Pro-Life bible verses for anyone who thinks the Bible is silent on the issue.

In related news, The Political Teen has video up of James Carville saying that he believes Alito was nominated to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

More:
The Political Teen, Verum Serum, Independent Conservative, Imago Dei, California Conservative, Clarity and Resolve, Right Wing Nation, Darleen's Place

 

hat tip Drudge Report
In the next few weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will vote on a bill intended to make abortion illegal. I don't know anything about the state of politics in South Dakota so this may be just to cause a stir or get attention, but it looks like we'll know in just a matter of weeks.

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.

A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days.

The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.

Also, the writer uses the term "anti-abortion advocates", instead of "pro-life". Nothing new it happens all the time, but incase you didn't know the media always seem to manage to use "pro-choice" when talking about the other side, and virtually never "pro-abortion". I guess that term is less cuddly huh?

Sure you may find quotes of pro-lifers in articles where they say "pro-abortion" or a christian news publication using the phrase, but it's almost a guarantee that a mainstream publication will use "anti-abortion" any day of the week, but almost never use "pro-abortion". Likewise they'll almost never use "pro-life", but are all too happy to use "pro-choice" for the other side.

Quick Bias Study

Yahoo! News Search: "anti-abortion" 872 articles

Yahoo! News Search: "pro-abortion" 86 articles

Google News Search: "anti-abortion" 1720 articles

Google News Search: "pro-abortion" 438 articles
(Note: Just glancing at the first few pages of the Google/"pro-abortion" search, you'll see that these are mainly conservative groups, and dozens specifically to LifeNews.com. Many others are editorials and blogs and such. So don't be mislead by the Google number (still only about a quarter of the "anti-abortion" article number) which is substantially higher than Yahoo!, because Google's news search just operates differently.

So there are the numbers folks. I'm sure the libs will argue "well, that's not fair.. it's just what the stories are about..." But they know, and you know that's bologna. You can run this study every day if you'd like and reach the same conclusion. I'm sure people with more resources can do much more scientific search, but you're going to find the same thing no matter how you do it.

This is all as things are heating up over the likely confirmation of Judge Alito as the next Supreme Court Justice, and demonstrations from both sides of the aisle yesterday, marking the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Keep your eye peeled for the clever terminology used when referring to different sides of the abortion issue.

Also, Michelle Malkin has the President's proclamation made yesterday, declaring January 22 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Read it now if you haven't done so already. It's the Dubya we elected, and I can only imagine the libs heads spinning like tops while they read it.

Stop The ACLU has a good wrap up on this and other abortion related news.

More:
Publius Rendezvous, Barking Moonbat Early Warning System, Michelle Malkin, Stop The ACLU, Verum Serum, Macsmind (graphic image, but great post), Holy Coast

UPDATE: 2/24/06 Michelle Malkin links us to this photo essay from Zombie, of a Walk for Life march and counter-demonstration (Walk for Death?). Obviously these people aren't the media (the topic of this post), but it's an interesting look at the pro-abortion crazies in action.

Reverse Vampyr is commenting on this too.