30-year-old Michael Lisk told police he had sex with his 13-year-old neighbor “too many times to count.”  He said the rapes, which began when the girl was just 12, were “like a marriage where you have sex all the time.”

Twelve months of sexual abuse culminated in a horrific incident last week when the pregnant child jammed a lead pencil through her cervix to trigger an abortion.  After three days of increasing pain, Lisk “advised her to ‘push hard’ when she got a strong contraction.” She delivered a stillborn baby boy into the toilet, and on Lisk’s advice, placed the body in a plastic bag and threw it into the backyard.  He took the bag and buried it in the woods by his home.

The following day the girl’s mother took her to the hospital where medical staff discovered evidence of a recent pregnancy and notified police.  Days later, the girl was violated yet again when the feminist Left turned her into the latest poster child for the abortion rights movement.

With absolutely no knowledge of this child’s situation, Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky insists parental consent laws are to blame for the gruesome home abortion.

One of the intentions behind these laws seems to be to let an adult know that their teenager is sexually active, presumably so they can intervene, or that their teenager has been raped, presumably so they can help them. In this case, those idealistic goals catastrophically failed.

It’s not hard to see how the fact that this 13-year-old girl needed parental consent for an abortion — which likely would have tipped them off to her 30-year-old friend/rapist — could have led her to do it herself.

Not that there’s any reason to believe this kid sought a medically-supervised abortion.  And if she did? Any clinic near her home (and there are more than half a dozen within 30 miles) would have gleefully helped her stick it to the “anti-choicers” with a judicial bypass.

And heaven forfend a sexually active teen be forced to talk to her parents! Newsflash: most pregnant teens are afraid to tell their parents. That doesn’t mean parents don’t have a right to know.

Jill Filipovic at Feministe sees this child’s suffering as an opportunity to score points against pro-life groups:

[T]his girl obviously needed access to safe abortion care; if she had such access, she wouldn’t have had to self-induce abortion with a lead pencil. Abortion access would have lessened this tragedy by a significant degree. It’s shameful that, under the guise of caring about children and babies, anti-choice groups seek to limit abortion access for women and girls.

In Jill’s teen abortion fantasy, this child desperately wanted to terminate her pregnancy at the local Planned Parenthood, but the vast patriarchal conspiracy forced her to drive a sharpened piece of lead into her uterus instead.  Cue the dream sequence sound effects. If only 13-year-olds could hit up the junior high vending machine for a dose of Mifepristone.  Press 1 for Reese’s Pieces, press 2 for extra large cherry-flavored condoms, press 3 for abortifacient drugs. Why, abortion access like that would totally “have lessened this tragedy by a significant degree.”

There really are no words to fully address the depravity of this mindset.

The tragedy is that this child was betrayed, abused, or neglected by every single adult in her life.  A child molester raped her more than a hundred times, impregnated her, and coached her through a do-it-yourself abortion by pencil.  Reports suggest the fetus may have been “past 20 weeks gestation” but no one noticed or cared enough to help. And for three days after the self-induced abortion, no one realized she was ill.

A medically-supervised abortion might have lessened the trauma to the girl’s body, but to what “significant degree” would it diminish the tragedy? The life of a fetus that may have been past the point of viability was snuffed out in utero. A child who needed protection, guidance, and love got none of these things.

We may never know exactly why this kid risked her life to terminate her pregnancy. We may never know how many teachers, family members, and friends failed to keep her safe.

What we do know is that her decisions were influenced by a predator who wanted to destroy the evidence of his crime and ensure continued access to his vulnerable victim. Unrestricted access to abortion wouldn’t do a thing to change that, and neither will turning a child rape victim into a political football.

Please visit NewsReal to read more of my work or follow me on Twitter.

1921 diagram from the Eugenics Record Office

The virtue of hate crime legislation is a given on the Left. Criminals deserve stiffer punishments if they select victims based on race or sex, end of story.

But what if one of those criminals chose to abort a pregnancy based on the race or sex of the fetus?  Oh, that would be a sacred right.

This is not hyperbole. Consider the depravity of this recent headline on Salon’s Broadsheet blog:  Banning Race-Based Abortions is Wrong.

My body, my choice to abort based on race?

The Broadsheet piece by Tracy Clark-Flory is a reaction to the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, a proposed law that would outlaw abortion based on race, color, or sex in the state of Georgia.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would apply to abortion “the same standards of nondiscrimination” that govern employment, education, government and housing, said Georgia state Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican who introduced the bill last month with bipartisan support.

If enacted, the bill would make it illegal to knowingly solicit, perform or accept funding for race- or sex-selected abortions.

So how does this translate into an assault on reproductive freedom?  Clark-Flory explains:

Roger Evans, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for litigation and law, told me over the phone that his main objection is to “the notion that the government has a role in deciding what are fair reasons and unfair reasons for a woman to have an abortion.” First it’s race and sex — but what next?

Ah, yes, the slippery slope argument.  First they come for our right to selectively abort female fetuses, and the next thing you know, it’ll be redheaded fetuses.  Pretty soon we’ll have no right to abort eight-month-old fetuses that kick too much in the middle of the night.

Please visit NewsReal to read the rest.

From my article at NewsReal earlier this week:

Incensed by the completely innocuous Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial, sports editor Dave Zirin blogged his fury at The Nation yesterday. He admits the ad was “about as vanilla as an Andy Williams Christmas Special.”  But it’s not the actual content of the ad that angers Zirin.

It’s the pesky free speech.

He’s infuriated that CBS would even consider offering a platform to Focus on the Family, an organization Zirin says has “shadowy connections to to open hate groups.” He believes allowing Focus on the Family to pay for “this kind of a mammoth public forum is an absolute disgrace.”

So what’s his solution?

Zirin insists CBS execs should have to make amends for their complicity in advancing the pro-life agenda.  “They should offer free commercial time to Planned Parenthood,” he proposes.

Please visit NewsReal to read the rest.

Democratic consultant Karen Finney called the Stupak amendment “an attack on our personal freedom and liberty as guaranteed by the constitution.” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the amendment “attempts to dictate to women how to spend their own money.” And liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg lamented, “Health-insurance reform was supposed to end the sort of hideous cruelties our system inflicts on patients, not create them.”

To call Finney, Lee, and Goldberg tone deaf would be a grand understatement.

The only reason the abortion restrictions in the Stupak amendment are so intrusive is because health care reform is so intrusive. When we increase the role of government in health care, our freedoms and choices become more vulnerable to politics. Period.

Funding for every aspect of the doctor-patient relationship, every medical test and procedure, and every health care guideline becomes susceptible to pressure from special interest groups and moral scrutiny by taxpayers.  If guys who can’t get it up have enough money to throw around, erectile dysfunction drugs make the cut.  If taxpayers think acupuncturists are predatory quacks, no reimbursement for them. And after the reconciled bill is signed by the president, an unelected body will make these decisions for all of us.

Liberals cheered when President Obama appointed an executive pay czar, reasoning that companies like AIG have no right to determine pay packages if taxpayers are footing the bill.  But somehow they missed the obvious lesson.  There are always strings attached to government handouts.

Welcome, liberals, to the hazards of government subsidy.  Either private insurance is restricted by health care reform, as with the Stupak provisions, or abortion receives some form of federal funding, thus changing the status quo.  There’s no in between.

Objectionable restrictions abound when we seek increased state participation in our lives through regulation or subsidy.  Just ask members of a United Methodist Church group that refused to make a beachfront pavilion available to a lesbian couple for a civil union ceremony.  The group lost its state property tax exemption for failing to make the venue available to everyone on an equal basis.  But that’s how it works: if you want state subsidies, you have to play by the state’s rules.

We’ve seen the impact on coverage in states that are experimenting with models of universal health care.  In Massachusetts, legal immigrants no longer have state-subsidized coverage for dental, hospice, and skilled nursing care. And if you’re a Medicaid patient, prisoner, or public employee in Washington state, don’t expect your government to cough up the cash for knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis – it’s one of several treatments no longer covered.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”  Do liberals really believe that those regulations will exist to make their wildest dreams come true, now and forever?

When you invite the government to become more deeply involved in health care, you’re also inviting greater government interference in personal choice. Medical decisions become political decisions. That’s how it works, and it’s why philosophical opposition to the growth of government isn’t the crazy-eyed wingnuttery progressives make it out to be.

Proponents of liberal health care reform deliberately lured a bloodthirsty vampire over their thresholds, and now they’re shocked – SHOCKED – to find they have fangs buried deep in their necks.  I’m not one to blame the victim, but it sounds like they might be getting exactly what they were asking for.

What a crock.

The bipartisan vote was not a Republican coup. It was the final bit of lubrication needed to help the House health reform bill squeak through in a 220-215 vote. Without the passage of the Stupak amendment, Nancy Pelosi would not have had enough pro-life Democrats on board to pass her bill.  So at best, the Stupak amendment was a Pyrrhic victory for pro-life Republicans. But more accurately, it was a demonstration that House Republicans are hopeless marks, skillfully manipulated into providing political cover for pro-life Democrats.

Even with the passage of the amendment, this pro-life “triumph” is destined to be short-lived should the bill make it to conference committee.  More than 40 pro-choice Democrats are threatening to sink the final bill if it contains the abortion funding restrictions, and President Obama wants the amendment language nixed as well.   With weeks or months for House Majority Whip James Clyburn to bargain with pro-life Democrats, there’s a good chance he’ll gather enough votes to pass a final reconciled bill without the Stupak language.  Few Democrats will want to block History in the Making™.

Republicans had just one opportunity to derail Nancy Pelosi’s bill on Saturday: all they needed to do was hold their noses and vote “present” on the Stupak amendment.  But only Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) had the stones to do so. The rest voted “aye” and now the Democrats have momentum, courtesy of the House GOP.

Votes in favor of the Stupak amendment amounted to nothing more than pro-life window dressing.  No unborn lives will be saved by this vote, and in the end, all House Republicans will have to show for their “courage” are their pro-life bona fides. The vote was devoid of any true value to the pro-life cause, and if the reconciled bill passes, abortion will no longer be just a right women can choose to exercise; it will be an entitlement.

If a meaningless political gesture is enough to let these politicians sleep at night, it’s time to find new representatives.

This week, following the assassination of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, comes the disturbing suggestion from Hilzoy (via Megan McArdle) that we “[r]equire training in late-term abortion techniques for Ob/Gyn certification.” The idea is to mitigate the risk of violent action against late-term abortion doctors by increasing their numbers, “ensuring that no one person has to take on him- or herself the risks that militant anti-abortionists want to subject them to.”

Hey, while we’re at it, why not launch an Inquisition to purge pro-life doctors from the medical profession?

It’s essential that we continue to train doctors who identify as pro-life, as well as those who are passionately pro-choice.  Here’s what I wrote in my original piece on the subject:

A woman should be able to choose a doctor whose moral compass points in the same direction as hers. Families should know that their doctor shares their values and will remain faithful to them, especially in a life or death situation.  Revoking conscience protections would revoke patient choice, a violation that would offend more pro-choice liberals if they were, at the very least, concerned with being consistent.

Most liberal feminists would balk at receiving gynecological care from a dedicated pro-lifer.  Shouldn’t pro-life women be able to choose a doctor who doesn’t engage in professional practices they find morally objectionable?

There is, without a doubt, a demand for abortion providers in America.  There is also a demand for doctors whose work is informed by a pro-life perspective on abortion, contraception, sterilization, and end-of-life decisions.  It is not the government’s role to decide that one of these categories of professionals should be phased out because it is less valuable than the other.

When did it become acceptable to ask the government to facilitate the subordination of a pro-life patient’s dignity to a pro-choice patient’s dignity?

Mandating that OB/GYNs be able to provide late-term abortions would be a frightening assault on patient choice and dignity.  It’s doubtful that it would save the lives of abortion doctors, but it would most certainly leave millions of pro-life women (and the many pro-choice women who find late-term abortions appalling) without access to medical care that meets their psychological and moral needs.

In 2008, the Bush administration issued a rule strengthening the requirements for compliance with the conscience protections set forth in the Public Health Service Act, the Church Amendments, and the Weldon Amendment.  Widely criticized as a nose-thumbing anti-abortion swan song for President Bush, the eleventh hour ruling was actually in the works for most of 2008.

Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services at the time, pushed for the regulation in response to a move by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) to require pro-life physicians to provide abortion referrals as a condition of board certification.  Concerned that the ACOG and ABOG policies violated freedom of conscience and non-discrimination laws, HHS issued the final interpretive rule in December 2008.

The new administration moved swiftly to begin the rescission process when President Obama took office.  But, as Tabitha Hale points out, while the interpretation of conscience laws may change significantly under the Obama administration, it is highly unlikely that pro-life doctors will be forced to perform abortions any time soon.

And that just doesn’t sit well with Jacob Appel.  He’s a storytelling bioethicist with a fever, and the only cure is more abortionists.

You may remember Jacob Appel from his recent call for an abortion pride movement.  His latest lament is that the number of abortion providers has steadily decreased, and yet pro-life medical practitioners are still permitted to take up valuable slots in OB/GYN training programs.  He proposes that medical programs help abortion providers increase their ranks by using a pro-choice litmus test to screen OB/GYN residency applicants.

Using religious and moral objections to abortion to bar qualified doctors from receiving training in obstetrics and gynecology is a clear violation of conscience protection laws, but Appel has an answer for that.

In the case of abortion, the current shortage of providers justifies a limited waiver of conscience exemptions as applied to the training of new OBGYNs.  If we do not act, women may find themselves in a position similar to that of the criminal defendant who in theory has the legal right to counsel, but cannot find any lawyer willing to take her case.

Appel does not bother to address why a doctor who intends to specialize in geriatric gynecology, for example, would need to perform abortions.   He also neglects to consider that pro-life doctors are not the only ones who refuse to terminate pregnancies. Indeed, there are many pro-choice physicians who are just as unwilling to provide abortion services.

But the greatest flaw in Appel’s argument is his contention that he is a champion of patient choice and access.  Appel is only interested in ensuring choice and access for women seeking abortion doctors, not for women seeking doctors who respect their beliefs because they share them.

A woman should be able to choose a doctor whose moral compass points in the same direction as hers. Families should know that their doctor shares their values and will remain faithful to them, especially in a life or death situation.  Revoking conscience protections would revoke patient choice, a violation that would offend more pro-choice liberals if they were, at the very least, concerned with being consistent.

Most liberal feminists would balk at receiving gynecological care from a dedicated pro-lifer.  Shouldn’t pro-life women be able to choose a doctor who doesn’t engage in professional practices they find morally objectionable?

Appel’s essay is not a harmless, isolated intellectual exercise.  His views are shared by many of the liberal feminist chatterati, including some in the medical community.

Dr. Julie Cantor, for instance, feels conscientious objection in medicine has gone awry, and that we, as a society, are far too tolerant of individual conscience.  Like Appel, she believes that “physicians and other health care providers have an obligation to choose specialties that are not moral minefields for them. Qualms about abortion, sterilization, and birth control? Do not practice women’s health.”  She feigns passionate support for putting patients’ interests first, but not so shockingly, that support does not extend to choosing a doctor one doesn’t consider an agent of death.

A doctor’s conscientious refusal to perform an abortion does not strip a patient of her constitutionally protected right to seek an abortion, not even if she has to get an advance on her paycheck and shimmy across the frozen tundra on her pregnant belly to reach the closest abortion provider.  The government is not your mom, your BFF, and your knight in shining armor all rolled into one convenient, omnipresent package.

There is, without a doubt, a demand for abortion providers in America.  There is also a demand for doctors whose work is informed by a pro-life perspective on abortion, contraception, sterilization, and end-of-life decisions.  It is not the government’s role to decide that one of these categories of professionals should be phased out because it is less valuable than the other.

When did it become acceptable to ask the government to facilitate the subordination of a pro-life patient’s dignity to a pro-choice patient’s dignity?

Isn’t there any way to wean people off the silly, prissy, dishonest terminology of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”?  What’s wrong with “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion”?  That’s what we’re talking about, isn’t it?

I sympathize with his frustrations about intellectual dishonesty in the abortion debate, and agree that semantic chicanery is rampant on both sides of the issue.  However, the four terms in question – pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion – constitute a set of distinctly meaningful positions that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

For example, in the absence of a belief in automatic ensoulment, can’t one be anti-abortion because the idea of snuffing out a potential life is offensive, but pro-choice in the recognition that medical professionals and clergy are better qualified than the government to help women and couples make family planning decisions?

I realize “pro-choice” and “pro-life” entered common parlance thanks to savvy pollsters engaged in propagandist wordplay, but they now serve a purpose in helping people define their viewpoints.   Positions on abortion are not binary and the language we have reflects that, so devising a simplified linguistic framework would actually impede clarity in the debate.

Finally, while I understand where John is coming from, trimming the language is a little Newspeakish for my taste, even if suppression of free discourse isn’t the intention.  I think I like the Oldspeak just fine, warts and all.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Allahpundit proclaims her destined for Hollywood, calling her “young talent in the service of a righteous cause.” Ace finds her a “very poised public speaker.” And Robert Stacy McCain rounds up a similar smattering of praise and awe from other right-leaning blogs.

Their assessment of her performance is spot on – set her up with Obama’s teleprompters and she’ll be a surefire hit on the stump – but what about the content of her message?

Don’t worry, I’m not going to subject a 12-year-old kid to a complete ideological fisking. I have great respect for faith-based arguments against abortion, many of which she presents impressively, but there are some examples of false and dated information in her speech that detract from her case.

Most notably, her speech includes the oft repeated, scientifically unsubstantiated myth that women are “at a greater risk of developing breast cancer if they have an abortion.” Experts at The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that scientific evidence does not support a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. The speech also includes exaggerations about the impact of abortion on women’s mental health.

I suspect the child who delivered this heartfelt speech was not aware she was citing false data. But that doesn’t mean we should pass it around without comment and hold her up as a model to which all kids should aspire. She is already gifted in the art of persuasion, and she would see even greater success if her talking points were less deceptive.

There are few aspects of the abortion debate I find more distasteful than the intentional spread of misinformation by people on either side. When pro-life activists mislead women about the harmful effects of abortion as part of a fear mongering campaign, it is just as egregious as intentionally downplaying the risks of abortion.

Whichever side of the abortion debate you favor, no matter how impressive you find this girl’s oratory skills, intellectual honesty requires us to expose arguments based on falsehoods, particularly when those falsehoods pertain to medical information. The truth is important, even it if doesn’t support our political goals.

Too bad that belief precludes me from successfully running for elected office.

While the liberal smear machine is busy decrying Sarah Palin’s choice of jewelry and gleefully branding her a “patsy for the patriarchy,” her family is dealing with a very private matter. The AP is reporting that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is five months pregnant and will raise her child with the support of her family and soon-to-be husband, Levi.

A statement released by the campaign said that Bristol Palin will keep her baby and marry the child’s father. Bristol Palin is five months pregnant, and the baby is due in late December.

“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents,” Sarah and Todd Palin said in the brief statement.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family,” they added.

The Palins demonstrate, yet again, that abortion need not be the default choice for an unplanned pregnancy or the only response to an unexpected prenatal diagnosis. They are unapologetically anti-abortion, and they walk the walk. By providing Bristol with a supportive home environment, Sarah and Todd Palin ensured that their daughter could comfortably make a choice consistent with her values.

The Obamas teach their daughters that “if they make a mistake,” they “don’t want them punished with a baby.” The Palins teach their daughters that even in the face of an unmistakable challenge, they have their “unconditional love and support.”

Which family provides a better model to which American families can aspire?

Which family sends the message that it’s okay to choose childbirth over abortion, to view children as blessings and not burdens?

While I am pro-choice, I have nothing but admiration for families who make it possible for teens to choose to raise children that result from unplanned pregnancies. McCain campaign aides confirm that Bristol Palin made the choice to continue her pregnancy. Not enough girls feel such a choice is available.

Bristol Palin did not plan to subject herself to intense media scrutiny, and does not deserve the vile, inappropriate bile “progressive” blog commenters are already spewing. But now that she’s under the media microscope, Bristol is uniquely positioned to make a huge difference in the lives of young women in this country.

I hope that Bristol Palin chooses to travel with the McCain campaign, talking to other girls and families, and teaching the country that abortion statistics will only plummet when American families and communities follow the Palin example of love, support, and acceptance. Like her mother, I’m certain she’ll be able to balance public life and family, even in the face of constant criticism and appalling misogyny.