Strollerderby : abortion

UPDATE: President Obama Issues Statement About Dr. George Tiller

Brett Singer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:36:00 GMT

President Barack Obama has issued a statement about the murder of Dr. George Tiller:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Well said, Mr. President.

TheRoot.com points out: "It's fairly unusual for the White House to comment on this type of local story. But the news of Tiller's murder, allegedly by an anti-choice activist apprehended this afternoon by local and state police, has reverberated across the country in a matter of hours—and inflamed a longstanding debate about abortion rights in America."

Methinks this won't be the last we hear about the matter.

Original post follows:

*-*-*-*

Sad news from Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while ushering at church. A suspect is in custody.

From Huffington Post:

WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion, making him a favored target of anti-abortion protesters. He testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.

Anti-abortion group Operation Rescue was no fan of Dr. Tiller; there is a "Tiller Watch" page on their web site. The group has issued a statement condemning the murder.

Tiller was recently tried for "allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly 'independent' as required by Kansas state law." It was a big deal case (we covered it on Strollerdery), with both sides tossing out big deal rhetoric. "Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals, while NYU Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as 'a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.'" (Source for both quotes: Wikipedia)

This is an ugly end to an ugly story. Hopefully the police have the right person and they will be punished. That won't bring anyone back to life, of course. No matter what side of the abortion debate you are on, I hope you agree that shooting someone in cold blood is a horrible thing to do.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: CrooksAndLiars

Finish Line - Creepy Cakes, Sesame Street, And Much More

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

No Hugs For You At Some High Schools

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

They Say: Having a Daughter Makes You a Liberal

JeanneSager — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:02:00 GMT

So blue might be the color most associated with boys. Turns out the blue states can thank their azure hues to the parents of little girls.

A conglomeration of studies about to be printed in a social science journal posit that parents' political leanings can be tied to the gender of their children. Notably, they say fathers of girls are more liberal.

Is that the same as saying they're more feminist?

Among the data social scientists looked at was the voting records of U.S. Congressmen. The first study (published in 2004) determined Congressman with daughters were more likely to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues. Four years later, the same researcher concluded the Congressmen with female offspring were voting liberally on a host of issues, including tax-free education and working families flexibility.

Integrating studies from Great Britain, the scientists have concluded parents with girls are more likely to sympathize with left wing ideals, while studies indicate that having a male child will lead to more right wing politics.

Interesting, because if you listened tp appeals to George W. Bush on particularly feminist issues, you'd often hear references to his daughters. As in "What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?" And I don't remember him coming out as a champion of Roe v. Wade, do you?

I'll allow that parents are more likely to weigh issues they wouldn't have otherwise focused on when faced with parenting a child of the opposite sex. A father with a daughter is more likely to have his daughter in mind when debating the rights of a woman over the rights of a fetus (although I'd wager there are a fair amount of dads who would still come down on the side of the fetus because they now equate their child with that fetus).

Even more interesting, the study suggests parents who lean to the left are more likely to stop having kids after the birth of a son - pointing to an added valuation of boys in the liberal community. Right wingers, they say, are more likely to stop making babies after a girl is born. Maybe it's all those liberal awakenings scaring them out of the bedroom?

Image: Flatrock

Via fivethirtyeight

Also on Babble:

Pick a Sex, Any Sex

Morning News - Palm Pre Launch Date Announced

Brett Singer — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

This is important to a lot of people, although it isn't IMPORTANT in the way that, say, something important is important. Know what I mean? Anyway, the long awaited, much hyped, and often blogged about Palm Pre will be available for our greedy little fingers on... timpani, please... June 6. Of this year. What's a Palm Pre, you ask? A new cell phone that may or may not be better than the iPhone:

If you want the phone you'll have to sign up for Sprint, which could be a deal breaker for me. I had Sprint for home phone service in college, and they used to do the following: send a bill every two months, then charge late fees because I was a month late. This happened for a year until I finally switched to something else. (This was back before everyone had a cell phone, and land lines were more important. Thus endeth the history lesson.) I realize this was not, as they say, last Tuesday, but from what I've heard, Sprint's service is still only so-so. So... we'll see.

Now, on to really really REALLY important news -- "Ghostbusters 3" may start filming this Winter, according to Dan Aykroyd. According to the L.A. Times and Entertainment Weekly,"the franchise film is expected to feature a 'new generation' of ghostbusters." So its like the new "Star Trek." Well, more like the new "Get Smart." Which isn't nearly as cool, but I guess it's OK. My kids loved the first movie, as do I of course, but I doubt this new one will be any good. Money, though, it will make. You heard it here first. In a semi-related story, wrestler John Cena quoted the original film recently, saying "It's chaos, the sky will fall. Cats and dogs living together." Not an exact quote, but pretty close. That will likely be the only time you will ever see me talk about "pro" wrestling in Morning News. I promise.

Anyone else think that the state of California is just plain weird? Not to be a judgmental New Yorker, but it seems like there's always something wacky going on way out West. For example: "California voting on budget crisis measures," sayeth CNN. Again, not saying everything on the East Coast is peaches and cream. But we rarely have mudslides, and we don't have ballot propositions. Also, our governor has never played Mr. Freeze in a movie. "It's going to be a cold time on the old town tonight." Really, Arnold? Really?

Michael Steele, the head of the Republican National Committee, wants fellow GOPers to "attack" President Obama more often. Classy. Steele, who publicly apologized to Rush Limbaugh back in March, also said that "Obama's first several months [were] 'a reign of error'" and "that the Republican 'renaissance has begun.'" Not to be partisan, but how do you figure? Even a Republican friend of mine -- OK, it's my dentist -- said that we've got to give Obama more than a few months before we decide what kind of job he's doing. Seems reasonable to me. Of course, one person's "reasonable" is another person's "wimpy."

Speaking of President Obama, some people are not letting his spech at Notre Dame go without a fight, or at least a lot of fire and brimstone. Father Jonathan Morris is very upset at the President, and at Notre Dame for giving him an honorary degree. Because really, when you think about it, the biggest problem in the world today is the fact that our Democratically elected President believes that abortion, which is already legal, should stay legal. What a radical.

Remember Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse? Doesn't ring any bells? He was the kid -- they think he's a teenager, so I can call him a kid -- from Somalia who was caught and charged with piracy. PIRACY. Not downloading "Wolverine" piracy. Not fun Johnny Depp "argh, Mateys" piracy. ACTUAL piracy. On the high seas. Crazy. He's in New York now (I guess we do have some weird stuff here) and has been indicted on charges 10 counts, "including piracy and conspiracy to seize a ship by force and to take hostages," according to the New York Times. What must be going through his mind? Doesn't speak the language, probably only sort of knows what the heck is happening. Very odd.

Last but not least, a nice little NYC story. A newspaper seller was handed an envelope with $1000 cash in it. There was also a note that said, "From Chris and George." The paperman, Jerome Kabore (pictured above), has no idea who Chris and George are. He started wearing a sign that says "Thank you so much Chris and George," just in case whoever it is comes back. Read the whole story here, it's nice.

Morning News - Astronauts Watch Star Trek In Space

Homebirthing Advocate's Baby Dies During Homebirth

Mom Puts 9 Year Old Girl On Craigs List For Revenge

Boy Accidentally Shoots Self With Forgotten Gun

Morning News - Astronauts Watch Star Trek In Space

Brett Singer — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:01:00 GMT

You are either tired of hearing me talking about "Star Trek", or you can't get enough of it. It's like Kirk vs. Spock in "The Apple", a classic episode of the original series. Actually, it's not really like that very much at all, but saying that it was allowed me to get in another "Trek" mention. Sorry.

Anyway, even if you don't care about "Star Trek", you may still think that this is cool -- Real Live Astronauts are Watching ‘Star Trek’ in Outer Space - Right Now. Actually, it happened on Friday, but perhaps due to a singularity created by red matter, it's possible that the astroanuts are, in fact, watching the movie as you read this. Unlikely. But possible.

Moving on to a topic I don't really understand, how about some international economic news? The Motley Fool tells us Why China's Stimulus Plan Will Change the World. Um, OK. Remember when you thought putting 20 bucks a week into your savings account was a solid method of planning for the future?

Barack Obama spoke at Notre Dame, which was a big deal because he is pro-choice. MSNBC says that he called "for 'fair-minded' abortion debate." So they booed him. Not everybody, of course.

David Geffen may want to buy the New York Times. I hope someone does. The idea of the Times going under is something I have trouble with. It's not just the paper, it's the reporters behind it. Sure, they may have made mistakes. But it's a great institution that should live on. So if selling it to a massively successful music and movie mogul is the way to do that, I say "whoo-hoo."

Swine flu, or H1N1, is still here. CNN reports that a "New York middle school assistant principal who was hospitalized with the H1N1 virus died Sunday. BUT he might not have died of swine flu. They won't tell us. Fun. Keep sanitizing the children, and yourself.

David Wells, who has both pitched a perfect game and attacked someone at a diner while drunk (allegedly), says that any home runs that Alex Rodriguez -- aka "The Rod" -- hit while he was taking steroids shouldn't count. Wells was a great pitcher when he was sober (allegedly) but he's got a big mouth. I never liked The Rod, but Wells just rubs me the wrong way.

OK, getting back to movie news, "Angels & Demons" took the number one spot at the box office this week with $48 million, despite generally bad reviews and a complete lack of facial expressions from Tom Hanks. "Star Trek" was close behind ( like a Klingon Bird of Prey) with $43 million, and "Wolverine" dropped to third with only $14.8 million. I saw "Anvil! The Story of Anvil" this weekend, mostly beacuse it was playing nearby at a convenient time. It wasn't as good as it should have been. It's sort of a real-life "This Is Spinal Tap", except that when you watch actual 50-year-olds who never made it in the music business still trying to make it, it can get a little depressing. Also, the film itself was too long (even though it was only 90 minutes) and didn't dig deep enough to hold my interest. Oh well. At least I got to see a movie in a theater with my wife, which happens far too infrequently. And the sushi we had before the film was really good. So there's that.

More tomorrow...

Image: Wikipedia

The Chubbiest Cheeks You Will Ever See

UPDATE: Dad Who Forced Son To Get Tattoo is Arrested

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Mom Puts 9 Year Old Girl On Craigs List For Revenge

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Brett Singer — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:08:00 GMT

Well, now I'm depressed.

According to Baltimore TV station WJZ, "Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women."

The story mentions a number of murders, and makes the following even more depressing statement: "In each case, police say the killer was the unborn baby's father. Ending the pregnancy was the motive."

At least I'm not the only one to be surprised. Isabelle Horon of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, "We were completely shocked to find that homicide was the leading cause of death."

The WJZ story says that "Thirteen years ago, Maryland passed a law allowing prosecutors to charge a pregnant woman's killer with two murders." Prosecutors want to use the law in the case of Valicia Demery, a pregnant woman who was murdered. However, "Of the 36 states with similar laws, Maryland is one of the few that requires proof that the unborn child could have survived outside of the womb." California, by contrast, does not require such proof to charge a killer with a double murder.

Here's where it gets tricky. Clearly killing a pregnant woman is a horrible crime. And doing so beacuse you want to end her pregnancy is even more horrible. But is it a double murder? If it is, doesn't that open a door to equating abortion with murder?

No matter what, this is a very depressing statistic.

Source: WJZ.com

Boy Accidentally Shoots Self With Forgotten Gun

Fox News Hates Kids In Political Videos Except When They Don't

Mom Puts 9 Year Old Girl On Craigs List For Revenge

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Parents Enraged by Emergency Contraception Commercial

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:00 GMT

British parents are up in arms about a commercial for Levonelle, an over-the-counter emergency contraception pill. After the commercial was aired on three TV channels, hundreds of parents called radio shows to express their outrage.

"Even though it was shown after 9pm my teenage daughters were watching,” one father said. “The worst thing is it makes it seem normal to go and get this pill. We've crossed a moral line with this."

The commercial depicts a casual sex encounter gone wrong—a girl lies in bed next to a slobby musician; a bubble over her forehead, creased with worry, says, “The ‘condom split’ one.” Her worries are intensified by a screaming baby on the bus next to her—then assuaged by a friendly pharmacist.

There is something undeniably off-putting about the commercial—the cheesy, upbeat music, the cuteness of the animation depicting an event that is the opposite of cute. But it’s a 30-second commercial, not an informative, honest discussion of what constitutes a healthy sex life, since that kind of talk is, uh, the parent’s job.

Unsurprisingly but nonetheless idiotically, anti-choice advocates have argued that the pharmaceutical company is promoting abortion, to which a spokesperson for Bayer Schering responded, "Levonelle One Step is not legally or scientifically an abortifacient. It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun and will not interrupt an established pregnancy."

Although most of the parents who complained about this ad focused on its allegedly casual message about sex rather than on abortion, it seems to me that if you support access to emergency contraception, you support allowing TV stations to air this ad.

What would you do if you were watching TV with your kids and this commercial came on?

Image: Brand Republic

Don’t like Your Baby’s Gender? Sweden Rules 'Gender-Based' Abortion Legal

Cole Gamble — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Now, according to a Swedish medical ruling, if a mother or couple discover the gender of their baby and decide “that’s not what we were hoping for” they can get an abortion on that basis.

Here’s how it broke down. A Swedish mother of two girls requested two abortions in a row after learning the gender of her fetus. It became apparent to doctors her decision to abort was based on the discovery of gender, which obviously was not the one she was aiming for. Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the fetus’s gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

The board found such requests cannot be refused, and neither can abortions, thus medical staff cannot refuse to perform an abortion based on gender.

Now the idea of isolating a “gay” gene in fetuses and therefore “eliminating” it has been bandied about by rather tacky political pundits. But before we get to that moral maelstrom, pick-and-choose baby gender is already here. Sure, the day when doctors can fudge your baby’s DNA to increase the probability of a boy or girl is possibly coming sooner than later, but for now, if you don’t like what you got, scrap it and start again.

Does this already happen discreetly in America? I can’t imagine anyone would ever openly admit to their doctor or otherwise that they want to abort the baby because “I really had my heart set on a girl” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Do you think this is more common that people are admitting?

More Stuff:

Creepy Old Japanese Pregnant Dolls (with Attached Creepy Fetus Dolls!)

8 "PG" Movies Way Too Scary for Kids

6 Reasons Why it Sucks to Be a Kid Today

Disturbing Baby-Swinging PSA

Dumb Kiddy Product Makeovers

Eating Your Baby's Placenta

10 Great Books For (Traumatizing) Children

The Morning After Pill for Teens – Should Your Kid Need Your Permission?

Cole Gamble — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:35:00 GMT

Recently a New York judge lowered the age at which a teenage girl may obtain the morning after pill without parental consent from 18 to 17. Said judge further stated he’d like to see the consent age requirement removed completely and the pill offered over the counter.

Of course conservative bloggers ripped this story a new a-hole. “Grrr! Rawr! Tarnation! Hiss!” said Ann Coulter, right before getting fed a raw steak on a stick and falling into a deep sleep.

Okay, some conservative bloggers have a point or two about the issue of giving teens more access to the Plan B pill. Rachel Campos-Duffy of Parentdish sez,

“The morning after pill is not an aspirin! There can be serious side effects such as nausea, cramping and even bleeding – not to mention the mental strain of taking a high dosage of hormones. Without a prescription, many teens will endure these symptoms alone, without the guidance or support of a doctor or parent. This is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk.”

Indeed, the health ramifications are important. I mean, will someone please think of the children. The trick is, should the morning after pill get over-the-counter status, it would be no different than a kid buying Nyquil and going “Robo,” glugging themselves into a nice little NyComa. Campos-Duffy’s essential argument is over the counter drugs are dangerous too. They shouldn’t be abused, but I doubt a teenage girl would, if given the chance, make a regular habit of gobbling morning after pills. Should a young woman ever need to resort to such a measure, the vast likelihood is it would be a one-time deal. Maybe some disagree. Well, I can personally say I hope my daughter doesn’t go out and have a ton of unprotected sex just so see has a good excuse to get high off Plan B.

And I wonder if this ruling brings back conservative fears that access to contraceptive aids increases the likelihood of crazy unprotected teen sex. The research, however, proves the opposite. The less contraception is an option, the more likely kids are going to engage in dangerous sexual behavior.

So is this really about health, or is it about control? Again, Rachel Campos-Duffy,

“…as parents we understand that our children will, at one time or another, do things we are not particularly happy with or proud of – and that may involve discovering that our child is sexually active. Yet, as parents, we need to know these things so we can counsel and love our children through these circumstances according to our family's values. That's our job!”

I don’t necessarily disagree with the above statement, but you need to read the fine print. Consent laws equal control over your child’s sex life. Advocating, educating, encouraging-- these I think are appropriate tools to guiding your child toward good sex practices, but control?

How much control should you have over your kid’s sex life?

Choose Life License Plates Debate Heats Up

JeanneSager — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:32:00 GMT

If you're a pregnant woman, do you want to get stuck in traffic behind a car sporting a "Choose Life" bumper sticker? What if it wasn't a bumper sticker but a license plate, supported in essence by the taxes you pay and the state government by virtue of their oversight of the department of motor vehicles?

It's a fight raging in the North Carolina House of Representatives right now, and one that's been cropping up in other states. Are choose life license plates allowing the religious right to get its hooks too far into government?

Judges in Illinois, Arizona and South Carolina have summarily dismissed the proposal to add them to the fund-raising options in the department of motor vehicles' repertoire, citing the topic too controversial. In North Carolina, the current debate is over whether "choose life" is a political issue because civic groups are eligible for special plates but political issues are specifically not allowed.

Its proponents, of course, say it's political in the sense that it is free speech. That's why the pro-life Children First Foundation has taken the State of New Jersey to court over the plates - citing the state for denying them their Constitutionally protected rights. They've pointed out that individuals pay for the right to have the special emblems on their plates, an extra fee that goes to help support the department of motor vehicles as a whole - so pro-choice people aren't technically funding a pro-lifer's message. If anything, they'd be benefitting from it with the funds raised that offset our taxes.

But it's hard to separate license plates, issued by a government entity, from the emblems printed on them. Even if a pro-lifer paid for that emblem to be there, it still stands that the government allowed them to put it there, even took their money to do so. What's next? Nazi symbols printed on license plates? If this is a matter of free speech, than why not? Although I am very decidedly pro-choice, I am not equating the general pro-lifer with Nazis.

But I would ask whether pro-lifers are ready to have the government supporting pro-choice emblems printed onto their license plates, at the behest of the state. A bumper sticker bears the opinion of the driver, a license plate is representative of government.

And my baby, my body don't belong there.

Image: WRAL

Abortion Ads On Television?

Brett Singer — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:00:00 GMT

British TV viewers may soon see "adverts" for abortions alongside the more typical commercials for tea and crisps.

According to ABC News, "the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practices [in the U.K.] is considering rewriting the TV rules regarding advertising as a way of tackling the problem" of an increased rate of teen pregnancy. Rules on condom ads would be relaxed as well; currently prophylactic TV pitches are only allowed to air after 9pm.

Groups like the British Pregnancy Advisory Service would applaud the changes, with chief executive Ann Furedi saying, "Why would we not want women to be able to know quickly and simply where they can get pregnancy testing and referral for abortion treatment or antenatal care, depending on what they decide is best for them?"

Speaking for the other side is Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship. "This is like having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to deal with the casualties rather than putting up a safety rail at the top of the cliff to stop them falling off."

Well, not exactly. It's more like telling people the ambulance exists. While it's true that if there were no abortion clinics, there would be fewer abortions, is it really so wrong to actually let women know what their options are? Of course, cigarettes exist, and we don't allow television ads for those. (That's true in the United States at least; I don't know what the rules are across the pond.)

Should the rules be relaxed, and should ads for abortion clinics be allowed on television?

Source: ABC News, BBC (Video report)

Image: SXC

Baby Born in Penn Station During Rush Hour

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Surrogate Agency Disappears With Potential Parents Cash

Finish Line - Our Week In Review

Brett Singer — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Back with a vengeance -- and the best of intentions -- we proudly bring you Finish Line, a weekly round-up of what we've writen the past week here on StrollerDerby.

Jeanne told us about a baby whose lack of a biological mother hasn't prevented him from being breastfed. By six different women, no less.
Amy got people talking when she asked "What Advice Did You Ignore?"
Shannon says that parents who help with homework might be no help at all. (It's more complicated than that, read her post to see why.)
Mike gets all serious when he tells us about "Autism and Links to Violence, a True Story".
Abortion! Now that I've got your attention, read Kate's post about a doctor on trial for performing the late-term variety.
Cole spills the beans on all of the stuff they don't tell you about becoming a parent. (Spoiler alert: the fact that kids are cute and sometimes stinky is not on the list. Cuz everybody knows that.)
And I pointed out that Baby Einstein doesn't just want your money -- they want you to feel good about giving it to them.

More next week -- have a great weekend everyone.

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:01:00 GMT

Let's get this out of the way first off: I'm from Kansas. Not everyone from my home state is narrow-minded or politically conservative. Even those who are conservative tend toward the "live and let live" ethos so absent from much of the far-right fundamentalist playbook. This may explain why it's taken three decades for George Tiller, MD, to find himself on trial, defending his vocation as the abortion provider of last resort.

Tiller's Wichita clinic, one of the few places in the country where a woman can get a second-trimester abortion, is by all accounts a haven for those who need to be there. Nobody wants to be there (it seems ridiculous to have to point this out, but I think it's necessary). Many if not most of his patients are having an abortion so late because they have only recently discovered that the fetus they're carrying is afflicted with grevious birth defects. Women do not get a late-term abortion because they're frivolous, or heartless -- their hearts are only too broken by the situation they find themselves in. This is the point at which terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" start to mean less and less, and real life becomes as complicated as it's possible to be. Even though it's vanishingly rare, late-term abortion is the flash point where politics and pain ignite. This is why there's a whole section called "Kansas stories" on a website devoted to women facing difficult choices after devastating test results. It's why volunteers walk patients through the gauntlet of protestors, mostly organized by the Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which refers to everyone born after 1973 (the year of Roe v. Wade) as a "survivor." It's why Dr. Tiller has been shot for doing his job, and why he came back the next day to work anyway.

Now Tiller's on trial, charged with violating a Kansas state law mandating that any abortion slated to be performed after fetal viability (defined as 22 weeks gestation) undergo a second opinion phase by a doctor not legally or financially tied to the doctor performing the abortion. At issue in this trial is whether the relationship between Tiller and another physician, Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus, crossed that line. It's a case that's been brewing for years now, initiated by a rabid anti-abortion state attorney general who was since defeated by the kind of Kansas voters who, even though they might call themselves pro-life, realistically figure that life happens and they are not in the business of playing God. The new AG, a guy I went to high school with, is a moderate Democrat, pro-choice in this issue, who had no choice but to continue to proscute Tiller under the indictment (and law) he inherited.

There are no winners here. One of the patients seen by Drs. Neuhaus and Tiller and given an abortion by Tiller was ten years old at the time. As fetal viability moves one way on the scale (it wasn't long ago that babies born before 28 weeks almost never lived), genetic testing gets better but moves more slowly. A woman having an amniocentesis at 20 weeks will find out at 21 weeks that the baby she's grown to love will live a brief life of unendurable pain and no hope of cognitive function; her choice is awful any way you cut it. At clinics like Dr. Tiller's she's given the chance to perform a humane and awful duty, a mother's unendurably painful act of love and letting go. I hate that his clinic has to exist -- I wish all babies were wanted and healthy -- but I'd fight like hell to keep a bunch of righteous idealogues from taking it away.

More by this author:

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Why Teen Girls are Taking Drugs Meant for Cows

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:01:00 GMT

It's rumor and conjecture at this point, but Wisconsin health officials are taking seriously claims that a rash of teenage girls have taking drugs commonly used on cows to force their bodies to abort babies.

The kids allegedly got hold of prostaglandins, drugs used by farmers to regulate cows' heat cycles for breeding, and ingested them as "a cheap and easy way to end their pregnancies without their parents finding out."

According to officials, as many as ten girls ages fourteen to eighteen have owned up to the home abortion practice, and the American Veterinary Medical Association has gotten pro-active, sending warnings to practitioners about the usage and storage of the drug to discourage the practice from spreading.

Though the numbers are still small, that it's happening at all is clearly indicative of the fact that these kids are just that - kids. Shannon reported on the alarming spike in teenage pregnancies recently, pointing to the fact that at least half of American teens are having sex. Throw in kids' fear of being proactive with pregnancy preventions, and it's not hard to imagine how kids end up in this predicament.

They're having sex like adults. But they're still kids. And at the end of the day, they are afraid of how to properly deal with the consequences of their actions. They're afraid of owning up to their parents that they've made a mistake.

What should happen? It's really up to the kids and their families. Whether it's a baby given up for adoption, a baby kept or an abortion (pro-life groups are naturally using the news to once again decry legalized abortions, somehow arguing that legalizing abortions has actually encouraged these types of home abortions despite the fact that the legalized abortions means kids have much better options) is dependent on the family and their situation, but what's important is that these kids get the support of adults, adults who have the good sense not to feed their kids dangerous drugs meant for massive animals with drastically different genetic make-up.

But as Shannon pointed out recently, with abstinence-only education comes a lack of discussion about what happens when. . . and if . . . And pregnancies are happening, have always happened. Shrouding sex in mystery is not stopping it, but it is still putting our kids at risk.

Image: SFGate.com

Should Mixed Up Embryo's Mom Get to Weigh In on Abortion?

JeanneSager — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:25:00 GMT

Remember the outrage over the Japanese doctors who oh-so-accidentally transferred one couple's embryo into the wrong mom-to-be?

The story's back in the news - with a twist. It turns out the woman whose embryo was accidentally transferred into the womb of an ususpecting IVF patient (who later aborted) did not find out about the incident for a full two and a half months. Doctors said the woman, who was in her forties, was not overly concerned. Her exact words (according to the health officials) were "I'm sorry to hear that."

So what's the problem? Some members of the press are now debating whether that woman should have had a chance to weigh in on the subject when doctors realized the mistake. In other words - some are debating whether the embryo's "Mom" should have had the right to talk the pregnant woman out of aborting her "child."

Wait, what? Technically, they're suggesting that one woman should have the right over another woman's body. And they're not the only ones.

Some of the commentors on the original reporting of the story here on Strollerderby expressed their outrage at the woman who underwent the abortion - even pro-choice moms. As Emma says, "That's pretty disgusting. This woman was so desperate for a child she paid for expensive IVF treatments, but she couldn't bear to keep a child that wasn't her's biologically? I completely understand her anger, and a large settlement would be justified. For me, despite being pro choice, the abortion is unfathomable."

As a woman who was very happy to get pregnant and even happier when the pregnancy ended (with the birth of my daughter), I'm not sure I'm OK with the idea of going forward with a pregnancy for the sake of someone else . . . especially someone I've never met. Planned surrogacy is one thing. Accidental surrogacy, and suffering through all the ill effects of pregnancy for someone else's child is quite another.

On the other hand, this woman and her husband provided egg and sperm in good faith. They thought their embryo would become a child, and it was their flesh and blood. They didn't impregnate some poor woman on purpose, and they sure as heck could have suffered exponentially from the loss of either the chance to become pregnant or the loss of that fetus.

Should the biological parents' of the embryo have been allowed to know the situation right away? Should they have been allowed contact with the pregnant woman? Or was there enough of a burden on the women who suffered from the wrongly transferred embryo?

Image: PatDollard.com

9-Year-Old Incest Victim Aborts Twins, Church Objects

Cole Gamble — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:00:00 GMT

A 9-year-old carrying twins allegedly fathered via rape by her stepfather underwent an abortion in Brazil Wednesday, despite the objections of Brazil’s Roman Catholic Church. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, a country that holds the highest concentration of Catholics in the world.

The stepfather has been in jail since last week.

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound girl.

"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told a Brazilian newspaper.

A lawyer for the archdiocese of northeastern Brazil said the girl should have carried the twins to term.

"It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder," the lawyer said.

The church excommunicated the mother of the girl and the doctors involved in the abortion. On Saturday theVatican backed that decision.

More by this author:

5 Lies Women Tell Each Other About Pregnancy

My Wife Says: 10 Reasons to Get Plastic Surgery after the Baby

10 Things I Learned about Poop from My Son

Musical SpongeBob Rectal Thermometer. Fun for Your Kid’s Butt?

The Most Awesomely Epic High School English Paper of All Time

Texas Wants Women to Listen to Fetal Hearbeat Before Abortion

JeanneSager — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:27:00 GMT

Why Texas? Why?

Do you really think women who are headed in to have an abortion are all happy-go-lucky sorts who have no idea what they're getting into?

Because leading members of Texas' GOP are sponsoring a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that's not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature.

According to the bill, the "pregnant woman may choose not to view the materials or avert her eyes." How sweet. If that's an option, how about just skipping the whole charade and letting women get on with it?

Its supporters have made clear they are looking to reduce abortion numbers, but they're also being careful throw a little "we're helping to cut down on medical malpractice" spin in there.

"I think that this bill will protect women from being at the hands of a doctor who is not performing best practices," study author Republican Sen. Dan Patrick said. But he's certainly sticking with the party line - he goes on to say, "secondly, it may change the thinking of that woman if she decides to look at that ultrasound, to hear that heart beat."

This move is right up there with North Dakota's recent declaration that "personhood" is achieved at conception. Neither directly reverses Roe v. Wade, but they skirt the rights of a woman being trumped by that of an unborn fetus. As my colleague Kate recently pointed out, the right-to-life movement often neglects the idea that there is life AFTER birth.

The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman's mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she's been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; no matter the pain it inflicts.

Did these guys read the much-talked about Glamour piece on women who've gone through an abortion?

"In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy," Liz Welch said just last month. "But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs."

So Texas, just to give you an update women might not feel guilty or even wrong for doing it, but it isn't an easy choice. They don't need to hear a heartbeat or be beaten over the head with literature and a detailed ultrasound description to know that.

Image: PatDollard.com

Family Planning Services Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:25:00 GMT

You might be shocked to learn that family planning makes much more sense than telling unmarried poor women not to have sex. A new report from the well-respected Guttmacher Institute has discovered that publicly funded family planning services save the government billions of dollars a year. According to a report co-author, “every dollar spent on [family planning] saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.”

Apparently, this is old news to the majority of policymakers, since 27 states have already opted to extend family planning services to low-income women who don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

Unfortunately, Democrats stripped the stimulus bill of a section that would have expanded family planning services to poor women, caving to Republican opposition. Anti-abortion activist Troy Newman of Operation Rescue called the proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families." How exactly does giving women the option of choosing when to have kids constitute population control?

This guy might have a point if the program was going to make abortions for poor women mandatory. Actually, government-funded family planning programs substantially (and entirely predictably) reduce the number of abortions. According to MSNBC, “Without publicly funded family planning, it [the report] said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.”

Apparently, taxpayers like Newman would prefer to pay for abortions than to allow a young woman the option of waiting until she's ready for kids before becoming pregnant. No doubt Newman would argue that women should not be having sex until they are ready for kids. But considering that evangelical teens have far more unsafe sex than the rest of their peers, it’s clear that abstinence-only sexual education is no match for the innate biological impulse to have sex.

Photo: Jezebel

Obama to Overturn "Conscience" Rule for Medical Providers

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:30:00 GMT

A "midnight rule" declared in GW Bush's final days in office, disallowing federal discrimination in funding to medical providers who refuse otherwise legal reproductive health treatment on the basis of religious belief will probably end in about a month.

The rule, which allows individuals employed by institutions receiving federal money to refuse services like abortion, permanent birth control (like a tubal ligation), morning after pills for rape victims and even routine dispensing of birth control pills, was established by Bush in December of 2008 and took 30 days to go into effect. Obama plans to unestablish it, which would kill it after 30 days of public review.

Supporters of overturning the rule point out that employers must already make provisions for employees' religious beliefs and there is no need for this rule which could jeoporadize the health and safety of patients in crisis. Health facilities affiliated with a religious organization already refuse certain services, but aren't allowed most federal funding. (There are loopholes even then.)

Supporters of the rule don't care what's already in place, and insist they need this to maintain religious freedom.

Did Catholic Church Push This Woman To Abort?

JeanneSager — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:28:00 GMT

The Catholic Church may well be the strongest advocates of the pro-life movement in the world, but a Canadian woman says doctors at a Catholic hospital pressured her to abort her baby.

On the face of it, the charges sound outrageous, even to someone who is pro-choice, but like most of these stories there's always a back story.

What mother Nikki Cooke refers to as a "eugenic abortion," was actually a suggested early induction of a baby carrying Trisomy 18, a a chromosomal defect that claims ninety percent of children by their first birthday. Many don't survive to even be born, which happened to the Cookes - the baby's heart stopped beating a week before Nikki was due to give birth.

The doctors had explained the slim chance that the Cookes' baby would be born alive and that there was nothing they can do. At one point, Cooke says she was told to terminate. One paragraph later, she's quoted saying they were "pressured to have an early induction." Which is it? Because inducing labor on a baby is not the same as an abortion. My daughter was induced, and she's very much alive.

Here's where some of the Cookes' claims could hold weight: Nikki says she was told IF her baby was born alive, the hospital would not resuscitate the baby. If that's true, the doctors in this case may have been legally protected, but ethically, that's absurd. How does a doctor allow a living, breathing child to go into respiratory failure and refuse to respond? Even if the child has a chromosomal difference, it's their obligation to make every attempt to keep that child breathing and the heart beating; at least until it is clear that there is simply no hope.

With Trisomy 18, there is little hope, it's true. But once a child is alive, that ten percent chance of survival is nothing to sneeze at.

The hospital, by the way, denies they would not treat a living baby. From the National Post:

"What is key for them is that labour is not induced until at least 23 weeks, when the fetus has reached viability, so if the baby is born alive everything possible could be done to save it. And if the diagnosis was wrong, the child would still have a chance."

It's also important to get back to the initial findings by the doctors - they didn't see the Cookes' baby surviving. They didn't see this baby being born alive, and they were advising a mother that it would be better to get her pregnancy over with sooner rather than continuing to carry around a baby who would not survive. Essentially, there was no hope. It comes to a point, the priest in the National Post article points out, where the safety and health (including emotional) of the mother has to come first.

According to the hospital guidelines in this case: "Medical treatment is permitted to prevent or cure a grave illness in a pregnant woman that cannot be deferred until the unborn child is viable even though the pregnancy may be endangered ... even though they will result in the foreseen but unintended death of the unborn child."

What's disturbing are the attempts by the pro-life movement to use this story as evidence that a mother is being wronged by a doctor making the determination that a fetus is not viable. It's sad for parents when this happens, but faith can't trump science. Sometimes, babies just won't make it. And it's important for parents to face that - as painful as it might be.

These are the same arguments used against women who opt for a D&C after a miscarriage, when the heart has stopped beating, and they are walking around with a non-viable fetus inside of them. They're branded murderers by some in the pro-life movement for what is, essentially, an abortive procedure - even though there is nothing there, there is no life in that tiny body.

You can't kill someone who isn't alive. You also can't call an inducement an abortion simply because the baby will not survive its chromosomal defects.

What do you think? Do you think the hospital was wrong here, or is this blown out of proportion?

Image: National Post

Elizabeth Hasselbeck Thinks Everything (Including Aerial Wolf Killing) is About Abortions (PLUS VIDEO)

Cole Gamble — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:30:00 GMT

If you’re ever invited to a dinner party with Elizabeth Hasselbeck, I’d avoid the topic of aerial wolf hunting or any topic really, because Mrs. Hasselbeck seems to think everything comes back to abortions. And I hate making polite abortion talk at dinner parties.

Recently Ashley Judd appeared in a PSA denouncing the practice of aerial wolf hunting, brought into the public spotlight by vice presidential nominee and nature-raping advocate Sarah Palin. Most would agree that aerial hunting is a completely unsportsman-like practice in the already brutal hobby of hunting. Elizabeth Hasselbeck thinks Ashley needs to get off her high horse; after all, 260,000 abortions are performed each year! (Her number, not mine)

Can you follow the leap in logic? Neither can I. Apparently in Elizabeth's world you cannot speak about any death or atrocity without dragging a woman’s right to choose through the mud.

Whoopi: Today on the view we have Simon Mendlebaum, a holocaust survivor who will share with us his incredible story…

Elizabeth: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Holocaust, Schmolocaust! Why are we talking about that old news when 260,000 ABORTIONS TAKE PLACE EVERY YEAR!

Whoopi: Okay, Elizabeth. You’re right. Maybe we should talk about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed in our current war in Iraq. That is a terrible and preventable waste of life. Surely on par, if not vastly outweighing these troubling abortions.

Elizabeth: Well, uh. Those deaths are patriotic.

Oh and don’t disagree with her or you’re a socialist! Elizabeth Hasselbeck: Black Hole of Logic and Common Sense.

More by this author:

Musical SpongeBob Rectal Thermometer. Fun for Your Kid’s Butt?

6 Reasons My Toddler is a Total Buttwipe

5 Second-Grade Boys Found with Heroin

Woman In Labor Calls Radio Station To Find Husband

Did Salma Hayek’s Breastfeeding an African Child Mean the End of Man’s Inhumanity to Man?

Should Cookie Magazine Get Killed?

10 (Dumb) Ways to Get Pregnant

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

"Pro-Choice Women Shouldn't Cry Over Miscarriages"

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:30:00 GMT

Just in case your day is going a little too smoothly, let me share an article that will make your blood boil—particularly if you are one of the numerous women who has suffered the pain of a miscarriage and also happens to believe in a woman’s right to choose.

A guest blogger named Gina over at Mom Logic has written a gem of offensive inanity called “Pro-Choice? Quit Crying Over Your Miscarriage!” Here’s how Gina characterizes the pro-choice women who “break down in hysterics” over a miscarriage: “It's a baby when they want it to be, it's a bundle of cells when they don't.”

This is such a shameless confusion of the issue that we need to put Gina’s thinking in perspective with an extreme—but real-life—example: do I believe that a 12-year-old rape victim should be forced to keep her baby? Absolutely not. Would I be heartbroken if I lost the baby I was carrying, whom I had carefully planned my life around for years? Absolutely. These are two entirely different issues. One has to do with my belief in the universal right to reproductive freedom, which is essential to ending the oppression of women; the other has to do with my personal feelings about motherhood.

Many women who would not choose to have an abortion themselves (except perhaps in extreme cases such as rape or incest) respect other women’s right to choose—as do many men, who will never face the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. That’s why it’s called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. By Gina’s line of thinking, no one who wants kids—male or female—should support a woman’s right to choose.

Gina also writes of pro-choice women who have the gall to want kids of their own: “Suddenly the monthly visitor that they were relieved to get when they were 20, now, at 32, plunges them into the depths of depression.” Well, Gina, this is a little something called “family planning”: making life choices that give both you and your future children the best chances for happiness and success—and therefore, bettering the world. How could anyone take issue with women who were responsible enough to avoid pregnancies when they were too young to care for a child? If it weren’t for unplanned pregnancies, there would be no need for abortion in the first place.

Gina claims that she “respects women’s right to choose.” If she truly is pro-choice—which, by her own definition, means believing that all babies are nothing more than “a conglomeration of microscopic cells” until they are out of the womb—then I sincerely hope she never gets pregnant. It’d be pretty difficult to avoid things like smoking and drinking if you have zero emotional attachment to your baby.

Photo: Flickr/Steve Rhodes

UPDATE: Obama To Lift Global Gag Rule on Abortion

SunnyChanel — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:15:00 GMT

This abortion related “global gag rule” has been tossed around not unlike a ping pong ball. This president-backed initiative, which also goes by the name the“Mexico City policy”, denies taxpayer funding for any and all international family planning organizations to discuss the option of abortion in cases of an unplanned pregnancy.

This order has been established, reversed and reinstated back and forth by Republican and Democratic presidents ever since Ronald Reagan initiated it way back in 1984. For over twenty years this ban has been debated.

And now the ball is back on the Democrats side of the net. According to the Associated Press, Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order very soon to reverse the Mexico City Policy and the ban on “federal funds for international group that promote or perform abortions.” Under anonymity (or “I don’t wanna get fired”) a senior U.S. official spilled the beans about the plan before Barack Obama has had the opportunity to make an official announcement. Obama opted not to sign the order yesterday on the anniversary of Roe Vs. Wade, breaking with tradition of lawmakers using the day to make an emotionally and politically charged statement.

This order should come to no surprise to anyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, who now oversees the foreign aid funds, both promised during their campaigns to get rid of this gag rule. Pro-choice groups were obviously happy to hear the news:

From the AP: "Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning," said Tod Preston, a spokesman for Population Action International, an advocacy group.

UPDATE! - On the afternoon of Friday Jan 23rd, Barack Obama signed the order. He opted to do it without any fanfare or media coverage, keeping the statement and change lowkey.

Source

Photo via WSJ

Anti-Abortion Nurse Works to Increase Abortions

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:30:00 GMT

A New Mexico woman has filed an action in federal court claiming that when she asked nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona to shorten the string on her IUD, Olona instead pulled it out (a painful procedure), and then told her it that was a good thing because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."

So the way she's against abortion is to screw up people's birth control, making it more likely they need an abortion? Swift one there.

(Current medical findings show, by the way, that IUDs prevent pregnancy primarily by creating an environment hostile to sperm and impeding their movement, not by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Not that the previous understanding would have excused Olona's behavior, but it's useful to know.)

Olona, of course, is claiming it was an accident, and that the IUD must not have been in right, but get this: She admitted these "accidents" happen to her a lot. "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

That sounds to me about as believable as "I accidently climbed on the counter and ate all the cookies." And a hell of a lot creepier.

Is physical violation, direct contradiction of patients' wishes, and ideological lectures what Rio Rancho Medical Center means by "a healing environment that takes care of the body, mind, and soul of patients and their families"? And if not, why does this woman still have a job?

Photo by Liz Henry.

More by this author:

Anti-Abortion Group Up In Arms Over Krispy Kreme Abortion Donuts

Cole Gamble — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:30:00 GMT

It started off such a sweet idea. In honor of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration, Krispy Kreme decided to offer free donuts to everybody on January 20th. As their press release stated:

"Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be."

The American Life League, an anti-abortion activist group, saw this sweet deal as an attack on defenseless unborn fetuses. These pastries had a baby-killing agenda. These were ABORTION DONUTS!

Is Kripsy Kreme offering free abortions with the free donuts? Can you pick up a baker’s dozen of abortions at any convenient donut shop on Jan. 20th? Surely these donut-glazing Nazis must be doing something horrendous to earn ALL’s righteous scorn.

According to the ALL’s President Judie Brown:

"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme, you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand…

Want to know how you picking up your free donut today will help kill “over 50 million preborn children”? ALL wants you to know.

- including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.

"Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that 'choice' is synonymous with abortion access, and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.

"President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.

"Celebrating his inauguration with 'Freedom of Choice' doughnuts - only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion - is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

"A misconstrued concept of 'choice' has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this ‘freedom?’ “

So now you know, donuts kill babies. Maple bars make Jesus cry. And some pro-life activists really, really, really, really, really, really crave attention.

More by this author: