« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Ezra Klein Supports Killing Black Babies

Don't Worry, It's Not Racist. He Just Wants Black Children To Die To Save Money

By: Lori Ziganto (Diary)  |  April 8th, 2011 at 09:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

What’s wrong with you, bitter clingers? Don’t you realize that a dead child is a cheap child? I mean, all dead babies cost is the funds to suck or cut them mercilessly from their mother’s womb. Presto! No more pesky expenses of a living child.

Ezra Klein, writing at the Washington Post, actually proffers that argument in favor of  taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood; that abortions are cheaper for the government than having an “unintended pregnancy”. (That’s their euphemism for unborn baby killed by abortion.) His article is filled with predictable talking points, all easily disproved – the SBA List has already done so here.  Setting the horrid spin aside, his concluding paragraph is truly vile:

The fight also isn’t about cutting spending. The services Planned Parenthood provides save the federal government a lot of money. It’s somewhat cold to put it in these terms, but taxpayers end up bearing a lot of the expense for unintended pregnancies among people without the means to care for their children.

Did you mean among “those people”, Ezra? After all, the majority of babies aborted are minority babies. In New York City alone, nearly 60% of unborn African-American children were aborted.

Somewhat cold, Ezra? I’d go with revolting and sick, but that’s just me. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, however, would surely be proud of you.


“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger

–

cross-posted at That’s What She Said

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davidsongirl

    It absolutely chills my bones. Why do people not see how evil this is?

    • donnylatenight

      Watch now for the inevitable argument that goes something like this…

      It is actually MERCIFUL to to ABORT poor and minority children rather than have them LIVE in a world where they could be subject to REPUBLICAN POLICIES…

      No Seriously, that mindset is rampant among Liberals who have said this to me in so many words…..

      They LOSE the Abortion Argument, especially when it comes to setting National Policy through the courts..

      That’s why they become all deranged when the subject comes to the forefront….. So let’s keep it at the Forefront..

      • davidsongirl
    • 4suramcan

      the insensitivity training we’ve had for a couple of decades now, is coming onto us. The me generation that threw out “love thy neighbor as you love yourself” is in full swing now, in charge and in your face.

    • http://www.resistnet.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

      Muslims do NOT abort babies! As a matter of fact the video below explains in detail how and why the Muslims are hell bent on out breeding ALL other races of people in the world for world domination via population!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc&feature=player_embedded

      • aesthete

        and personally, I happen to find the anti-abortion stance in Islam to be one of its redeeming features.

    • realineplatonus

      When a human gives birth to a human, that human may grow into a human that can birth another human. Ergo, one can argue that life is a circle–it is continuous.

      When a woman seeks an abortion, a lump of organic material less strident than a tumor is expelled from the body. It is not a person. It has the genetic material to be a person, but then so do your toenail clippings.

      Women have been able to obtain or self-perform various methods of abortion since the dawn of civilization. It is not difficult to encourage a miscarriage just as it is as common to bring on an unscheduled period (before it’s “regular” time) by performing certain activities. This is not the “murder” of a human being any more than a woman having her monthly menses is the murder of an unfertilized egg.

      Religion is a man-made organizational structure that was devised to bring social order to primitive societies. God doesn’t care if you abort a fetus. God cares if you are kind and loving to your fellow human beings, (“being” is the key word), which means contributing to a livable, safe, abundant environment for everyone. When there are too many people and not enough resources, then no one has a productive or sustainable environment.

      Let women continue to be the sensible guardians of fertility. They are far more realistic and pragmatic than the men (and some women) who try to control women’s sexuality at the behest of man-made mumbo jumbo. When women have more children than they can feed, it is because some man chooses sex (for pleasure or visible signs of potency) over practicality, and the situation is often complicated by the man’s lack of subsequent support for his own offspring.

  • http://www.markmatter.com maddog4hire

    Maybe we can argue that if the left will let us control the borders we can afford those expensive “unintended pregnancies” and they’ll let us shut down the abortion mill called planned parenthood.

  • drewk

    Ezra Klein doesn’t actually support killing black babies.

    • i8bugs

      all babies who have single poor mommies, of which blacks lead the demographic. And we cultivate it by paying welfare on one side for each baby that lives, and pay for the abortion of the ones the mommy doesn’t want. All unintended consequences. Or is it unintended? There’s room for doubt.

      • 4suramcan

        Doubt, well just maybe, etc. Not knowing right from wrong anymore is what fuels their agenda. And there is more of that than what they need. Just look at whats happening, If you can see past your nose.

    • mwmom

      but he supports and advocates for an organization that provides a service that kills black babies at a very disproportionate rate than white babies. African Americans are about 13% of the population but account for 1 out of every 3 abortions in the US. You tell me if that isn’t killing black babies.

      Do you even know anything about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and her support of eugenics? Again, read up on her and really examine some of the liberal talking points about abortion … they don’t hold up.

      here’s a link to an article with some stats but you can google it and find out for yourself from many, many other sources. I’m not really great at posting links so it may not work but the info is easy to find.
      http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16919

    • streiff

      because your statement contradicts him.

      • drewk

        that it’s absurd to frame his position this way. It’s like saying George Bush “supports killing Iraq children” or that any governor who signs off on an execution “supports killing abuse victims.” Neither characterization accurately reflects their true position.

        I do imagine Ezra Klein is generally pro-choice, though this particular post of his is not directed mainly at that argument. It’s directed at whether whatever reproductive options we as a society deem appropriate should be made available to those without means or whether they ought to be restricted to those who can afford to pay.

        His particular point is that defunding PP won’t just affect abortions, it will reduce access to birth control and other health services for poor women.

        • streiff

          is you trolling this list. A problem I will solve momentarily.

          What is even more absurd is you constructing an argument Klein neither made nor implied in his defense.

          Actually banning PP would have a virtually nonexistent impact on “birth control and other health services”. All those services are found in abundance at 1. drug stores and 2. primary care physicians which “poor women” have access to via Medicaid at least.

        • qurys

          He said

  • nancylee

    Somewhere along the line these people never developed any empathy for others. They are inhuman monsters, worse, in my mind, than the murderer who kills for another’s property.

    Killing for convenience, telling themselves that it isn’t a baby until it is born — The lack of human feeling is truly appalling. They’ll go to all lengths to save a murderous criminal like Ted Bundy, and yet shrug off the murder of an innocent baby as a cost-saving measure. Such individuals lost their claim to humanity a long time ago.

    I hope to heaven my life never depends on such soulless individuals.

    • drewk

      You really believe that someone who thinks that abortion is sometimes okay or finds it morally ambiguous is devoid of any capacity for empathy? Is there no chance that their empathy, as fully formed as yours, leads them to a different worldview than the one that your empathy leads you to?

      • WarEagle01

        I have no idea if you have the capacity for empathy in all cases. But, clearly you have zero empathy for the unborn. How in the world can you say you feel empathy for an innocent person who is about to be dismembered, or have her brain suctioned out, or be scalded to death, and then say “but I’m OK with it” or “I’m morally ambiguous about the horrible bloody fate that awaits you?”

        • drewk

          I think it’s important to remember that the relative gruesomeness of abortion is essentially immaterial to whether or not it is immoral. If abortion is in fact morally wrong, then it would be morally wrong even if done gently and peacefully. If it is in fact morally permissible, then its level of gore would have little bearing on its moral status.

          Secondly, I think you are overlooking how empathy tends to work. It’s not a one-way street that takes us with laser-like certainty to particular moral conclusions. It often leads to a conflict. Why is it so hard to reckon that someone who is on the fence about the moral status of abortion holds that position precisely because of a divided sense of empathy, including empathy for the welfare of the unborn? That empathy doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is mediated by empathy for other actors. People balance these empathies differently. They reach different conclusions, or no conclusion.

          I’m not trying to have a debate about abortion, I think that’s generally a fruitless endeavor, and I’m not out to change anyone’s mind on it. What I would like is for those who find abortion to be completely morally unacceptable to at least acknowledge that those who don’t are still human.

          • johnt

            In other words, gruesome is not nice. It adds to something called “pain”, which is also not nice, and which, sonofagun, babies can feel, actually, really feel. Not that anybody gives a s—-. least of all about “gore”.
            Your last sentence, pathetic and ugly, who says pro-abortion advocates are not human? Please, no self pity, no set ups or straw dog arguments. It is what is specifically lacking in their humanity that is the issue, this issue. Speaking of which, are not the babies to be also human?

          • drewk

            “Somewhere along the line these people never developed any empathy for others. They are inhuman monsters, worse, in my mind, than the murderer who kills for another

          • johnt

            own post back to you, though I can see I wasted my time in the first place. I will take only the first sentence of your 9:00 AM slop, and refer you to my first sentence in response. an example.
            If it is only etiquette that concerns you, you may wish to review the out of control hatred and cheap slander that we experienced on the Budget issue, or perhaps the incessant description of Obama critics as racists, and a lot more. Clean up your own house & try and remember we are talking about human life and pain, not food stamps.
            If human life is at stake, you know, that for example which you enjoy, it is petty to bring up what one poster said, and by your own words,[last sentence], you “are not tarring everybody”.
            But if you don’t think “the lack of human feeling is truly appalling”, perhaps you and I can jointly visit an abortion mill, like the one in PA, just closed. With some luck we may observe a born, living baby finished off with a large knitting needle, or perhaps one getting it’s skull crushed. I’ll buy the drinks afterwards even though “gruesome” doesn’t count.
            Bad news for you, abortion funding for the D,C, area has been cut off. Get out your checkbook and give till it hurts. I know you’re not going to ask me or nancylee to pay for this, time to step up & put your very sensitive feelings aside.

          • powertothepeople

            “I think it

          • powertothepeople

            and no more drinking tons of Mt Dew for me.

            I wrote

            Most would say no even if they strongly favor the death penalty because they was death was delivered was horrible.

            Should have been

            Most would say no even if they strongly favor the death penalty because the death that was delivered was horrible.

          • bigmaude

            Description of the horrors of abortion! Not surprisingly, even that won’t change the mind or worse, heart of anyone who is for the killing of babies. The irony of your post is the banner at the end……God Bless The USA……..after what you described, would someone tell me why He should?

          • standingonhispromises

            even the abortionist or the one having an abortion can be forgiven, if truly repenting and asking God….. I do agree that this nation is reaping its rewards of unchecked abortion. Even the woman in the original Roe vs. Wade did not have an abortion and eventually became a grandmother and a speaker against abortions…
            Thank you for the great comments and description of what really happens.
            I find no better argument against abortion than the stories of aborted “fetuses or tissue” who were rescued from garbage cans or sinks after being aborted. My favorite was the young beautiful girl, missing an arm, who starts with “I was never born. I was aborted.” (her arm by the way was torn off in the abortion, the nurse sent in to clean up, stole her out of the clinic, and moved, changed names and recorded the girl as a live birth at home)….

      • streiff

        in killing children? How about old people? Paraplegics?

        Anyone who supports abortion has long since surrendered their humanity to utilitarianism.

        • nancylee

          That says it all.

          • 4suramcan

            the devil, is the great destroyer. Anyone who destroys, especially the abortionist or the ones having the abortion, is of the devil. GOD cannot bless this nation when such as this is going on unchecked.

  • WarEagle01

    Remember, it was Democrats like him who founded the KKK, twice.

    • drewk

      It’s pretty disingenuous to insist that the founders of the KKK were anything like Ezra Klein.

      • WarEagle01

        They were Democrats who hated black babies. Like him, apparently. If one is going to choose to be member of the Bull Connor party, then I say “own your own history.” Be proud of it.

        • drewk

          Ezra Klein doesn’t hate black babies.

          But that’s beside the point. Since when does somebody who holds some views traditionally associated with a particular political party automatically hold all the views of anyone ever affiliated with that party? That’s a ridiculous proposition, and you know it.

  • Adjoran

    It was they who told us Ezra Klein was “a liberal we can have an honest debate with over ideas” and also “an expert on health policy.” This was after they gave us Andrew Sullivan, but before Matt Yglesias.

    How do you like them NOW, all you Short Pants Brigaders?

    In fairness, though, Klein loves black babies – in a blender.

  • ragstoriches

    base our moral decisions solely on the financial burden imposed on the country we’re going to need a much bigger blender.

  • slimmu

    that is, private charity services aren’t doing enough in terms of adoption or foster care so the responsibility falls to government. This really is a failure of charity services in this country.

    • streiff

      That’s not what he either said or implied.

    • Ann_W

      Some (such as Catholic charities) are shutting down adoption services in certain states because the government has regulated who they need to give children to regardless of the organization’s beliefs. The government also has the power to remove children from bad situations which charities do not.

      • slimmu

        Catholic charities shut down their adoptive services because the government was providing them funding for those services, so as an agent of the state, they can not discriminate against gay couples wishing to adopt. Catholic charities could simply not accept government money and would then be free to serve whomever they wish. So it is actually the failure of the charity.

        • Kyle-MI

          See the article at this link:
          http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

          Here is the relevant part:
          “To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination–including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.”

          It is not about accepting funding. It is about state licensing.

          • slimmu

            Catholic Charities still operates in MA both in Worcester and in Fall River offering adoption services they only closed the Boston services:

            http://www.cssdioc.org/services/adoption/index.html
            http://www.ccworc.org/services.html

            Again its only adoption agencies that contract with the state that have to meet their anti-discrimination regulation. If they don’t contract with the state then they can offer service to whomever they like. This detail wasn’t reported much when the story broke and is why its not mentioned in the 2006 article you just Googled. This one by the Catholic News Service is still old but more accurate.

            http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601456.htm

          • powertothepeople

            agree with the Kyle often, but you really should read your own links prior to telling him he was wrong.

            He states that any agency in the state that offers adoptions must comply with state law. He offers a link that shows that very thing. You claim, they would have to only follow the law if they have a contract with the state and you offer a link that states the exact opposite in its very first paragraph,

            “Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt.”

            It goes on to say,

            “The same day Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called it “a mistake for our laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children” and said he would seek legislation allowing religious agencies to perform adoptions without violating their religious tenets.”

            Now maybe you do not understand what they mean by contracting with the state, hence you make inaccurate assumptions due to this paragraph,

            “Massachusetts laws and regulations, however, require adoption agencies contracting with the state not to discriminate against same-sex couples who seek to adopt children.”

            Contracting with the state simply means doing business in the state. If they want to do business in the state, they must contract with the state via a license. It has nothing to do with accepting money from the state as you asserted above, it simply means doing business in the state and having proper licensing. Nothing more, nothing less.

            It is simple common sense. They are dealing with children and the placement of children. They must have permission (contract) to work in any state they want to operate in, must have proper licensing (contract), must submit to state oversight, and must follow state law. Where you start getting into religious issue is when an agency takes state money or federal money and limits their services strictly to same minded religious people. This would cause problems. In most states, same sex adoptions do not occur or are even illegal. They would not have to adopt to same sex couples. But in MA,they have a direct law requiring all contracted (state approved/licensed) agencies to comply with their anti discrimination policies including adopting to gay couples which is in direct violation of church policy. This is why they are shutting down. The fact that some still stay open does not mean Kyle is wrong, it simply means those branches do not have a problem with adopting to gay couples or are willing to stay in the game even with the occasional breaking of church beliefs in order to do good for the needy children.

          • slimmu

            The Worcester Diocese still operates and refuses gay couples adoption services.

            “Catherine Loeffler, executive director of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Worcester, Mass., said the Boston agency’s decision would not affect her agency’s practices.

            If a same-sex couple comes to the Worcester agency seeking to adopt, it will continue to ask the state, which refers the couples, to use another agency for that case, she said.”

            They are obviously able to operate in MA and refuse services to gay couples. They could not do this if they had to meet a anti-discrimination licensing process. It doesn’t get any simpler to understand, your interpretation is just as wrong as Kyle’s.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            My father was an usher at Saint Anthony of Padua in New Bedford. He was from South End. My mama, product of Catholic schools, was from The Flint, Fall River. I am a Mass lawyer. Yeah, you can get around the law like the Augusta National Golf Club can around federal discrimination laws, but in real life Cahtolic charities can no longer continue their adoption agencies unless they bow down to the state. The Catholic Church is not there to play games; just to help poor kids unlike the selfish, gay, liberal pieces of fecal matter who thwart them at every turn.

            It’s about the kids; and those egotisical, self-righteous, hypocritical, pathetic dregs on society who put their sexuality above the health of wounded, needy children will get a special, hot, dark place in hell.

            Those hypocritacl, hateful, douchebags have their eyes on the Diocese. Anything that undermines, and eventually destroy the Church, they support, even if that means hurting victimized children. They are the worst of the worst. The gay community of Boston deserves all the vitriol and hate they recieve. Its not homophobia; its because they are awful, hateful people.

            Categorize it any way you like. Those people hurt orphans; they hurt children; and they hurt society. Sean O’Malley is a hero. His enemies will rot.

          • powertothepeople

            You should be an attorney of a corrupt nature because you seem quite content to twist simple language.

            Their position has nothing to do with your claims or the position of the state, period. They are simply stating that they will carry on until forced to do otherwise. Never does she say they are exempt because they do not take state money, in fact she simply says that they will ask, notice the word ask, the state to refer gay couple elsewhere. The state has no interest in shutting them down till forced to do so via court challenge.

            Your entire premise is that the decision of the charity to stop providing services is their fault because they take state money. You base this claim on your complete lack of understanding as to what contract with the state means. You are absolutely wrong and I have no clue as to why you persist in your argument. Your argument holds no merit, is not based in fact, nor are you backing it with any legitimate links. In fact, your own link shows you are wrong. Twisting context may work with liberals, but here we actually take the time to look into things. You should try it.

            The one organization was taken the ringer for standing on their religious principle. The other is yet to be challenged. They may be in court right now but allowed to operate till a decision is made. None of that is disclosed in your link or other links. It may very well be they have not been challenged to date because the state officials in their area have no issue with referring gay couples to other agencies that deal with same sex adoptions. The other was not so lucky. But contract with the state has nothing to do with subsidized payments to the charity, it has to do solely with being licensed to offer adoptions in the state.

            And it will only be a matter of time before the other ones are hit with legal challenges from some POS who thinks their wants are more important than the faith of another and the needy children.

          • slimmu

            was well understood but apparently not. Lets back up a bit then and please don’t take offense, maybe just take this as a learning opportunity.

            Religious groups are generally exempt from civil rights that would violate their creeds, this is established federal law. So, for example, the Catholic Church does not have to ordain homosexuals or women as priests. It does not have to hire a Muslim to run its youth outreach program. It is not required to hire a homosexual to teach a confirmation class. If then the Church believes a marriage is more religiously fulfilling through the raising of children, then as part of its mission it can work to facilitate adoptions and can conduct those services in compliance with its creeds. This however changes when the religious group accepts tax payer money to perform a service, or offer it as a paid service, then they are expected to follow anti-discrimination laws when performing those services.

            Fall River CC offers adoption services as a true charity, it accepts no state or federal money and accepts no money from couples looking to adopt and therefore can offer their charity in compliance with their creed. Boston CC could have done the exact same thing but voluntarily decided to shut its doors.

          • powertothepeople

            that the issue her is not church or state and deals solely with children who are wards of the state and the states requirements in order to be a part of the adoption process, you will then end your moronic argument and move on to other subjects you actually know about.

            You keep referring to tax money and yet if they even take it has not been established except in that mind of yours and has nothing to do with the subject. You can keep saying it time and time, but it is still moronic.

            This issue has solely to do with MA law concerning how approved agencies can adopt out children. The one agency was forced to either choose to abide by the law and in doing so violate their faith or close. They closed. The other agency has not faced the same thing yet but will eventually. Your own links state that. Just because one has been forced does not mean the other has as well.

            Now I am done with this since it is obvious you enjoy spewing moronic nonsense that you obviously have no intimate knowledge about. Before you start with the pious BS about letting this be a learning experience, you should know the subject matter or you look like a moron. And that is a badge most do not want to wear, I do not understand why you hold it up with pride.

            It does not take much “smarts” to understand why there would be a need to pass a law allowing faith adoption services to receive an exemption from state law mandating them to adopt to gay couples if all they had to do was stop accepting tax money. The catholic church, especially the Boston section, have plenty of money to keep their charities afloat. Not too mention the cost paid by the adoptive parents. It is because the law has zero to do with whether or not they take tax money, and has all to do with state law in order to keep their license.

            PS The fall rivers Catholic Adoption Agency, Adoption by Choice which is who I assume you are talking about, does, and I repeat, does charge to adopt. A quick call gave me the info that it will cost nearly $5000 even before you chose a child just for the upfront checks, in home visits, etc. I was told the average adoption of an American child will cost in excess of $25000. So not sure where you get your info. I was also told that this cost was dependent on me getting aid…………..hummmmm, receiving adoption assistance from programs offered in the state……….hummmmm, and other adoption grants from other groups. You should really call or look into your examples before using them don’t you think?

  • lukematthews

    is entirely beside the point. DrewK, your problem is you are presuming Ezra Klein is respecting the right of these individual, genetically unique, people to live or not to live. Klein’s argument is precisely that of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, in Buck v. Bell. Holmes presumed society had a right, if not an obligation, to select its members through genetic lines. When he wrote, “three generations of imbeciles are enough’, Holmes presumed a human agency, government, could decide whether a life was worth living or not. Klein, and his mentor Ezekiel Emmanuel, believe that a human agency can and should predetermine the moral worth of a life. Where Holmes believed you could genetically predict winners and losers, Klein believes through socio-economic conditions you can pick winners and losers. Klein relies on social scientific statistics that ‘predict’ a child born in poverty will have a harmful impact on resources while a child born in a more affluent atmosphere will have a positive impact. This presumes that human agency will be right. We have rejected that presumption as thoroughly immoral and just plain evil.
    Hitler presumed Jewish ancestory was ‘bad’ for society.
    Holmes presumed imbecile ancestory was’bad’ for society.
    Klein presumes poor environmental ancestory is ‘bad’ for society.
    They all based this on a presumption of a human agent as a good judge of future behavior and worth.
    That’s what makes Klein’s argument amoral and fundamentally flawed.

    • methodius

      some one else who recognizes the destruction to morality and our founding priciples OWH Jr. brought to the thinking of the court. His divorce of natural law and right from our rule of law was the foundation of many a poor court decision and certainly made Roe v. Wade possible long after his death.

  • geah

    if one cannot adopt, foster, seems like the wee ones would get care and love one way or another, plus the legals and gays would have to pay for it without having a say in the matter, or does the law also allow same sex couples to foster also, I really do not know. its a thought only.

  • simplyright4me

    It is amazing to me that the black race in America are allowing the eugenic destruction of their own race, which was the original intent of Planned Parenthood. They allow their babies to be slaughtered, they depend upon government for their livelyhood and education is of not value. This is similar to an individual that puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger. Democrats, let’s quit calling them Democrats, they are Progressive Marxist now days, have managed to totally consume the black race and make them their poster boy for continued political power. In the early years of our country the Democrats were the slave holders and the slaves wanted to be free. Now the Democrats are still the slave holders and the slaves want even more from their masters. But to put your selves in a situation that allows for, yes even fight for the right to exterminate your children at a rate that is unbelieveable indicates a real lack of God fearing moral fiber and a massive breakdown of the family as an identifying force in ones life. Some blacks have broken the chains of the 21century slavery but so many more are willing to kill their own kind through abortion. I am a Pro life person but the Left they are just Pro abortion, and it has made a lasting mark on this country.

  • bigjohn555

    We all know that abortion is wrong, but can there be a “greater good?” I’m sure that 98%+ of all babies that are aborted would have grown up in a liberal household, so allowing them to get abortions, even with us paying for them, we are helping the cause of our children and grandchildren not having to fight liberals all their lives.

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      …after you spammed it eight more times.

      Shoo.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        He might have only spammed it four times and each time it duplicated.

  • dajeeps

    Thank you for pointing out this quote. It points many things besides the real reason behind the extermination of babies; and it’s not just about black babies, either. It’s about all of them, and neither color nor class matters when it comes to matters between life and death.

    The pro-life issue aside, however, I find nowhere in the consitiution that gives the congress the ability to exercise any kind of legislative authority over the issue in any shape or form. If the Congress doesn’t have it, then neither the Federal Judiciary nor the Executive have it. There is also no authority to administer social programs of any stripe. And what this points out to me is that just by capitulating to the nanny state, we get all of the other ugly things that come with it; and it isn’t any different with socialized medicine, farm subsidies, financial regulation… just name it and there’s all sorts of command and control problems just oozing out of them.

    And we make it about this, eveyone jumps on their own issues, as we’ve been doing for decades with little benefit. So now priase is being lumped on Boehner for cutting $61B out of the budget, even though nothing of real import has been accomplished while we debate about womens’ health. It’s a big trap to fall into by not focusing on the fact that the limits of government have been far exceeded and it impacts far more than our wallets, and because of that nothing will ever change for the better.