Planned Parenthood's Perfect Storm

Just like after 9/11, when Planned Parenthood offered survivors free abortions, Margaret Sanger's bunch is there for Katrina victims with free medicine—to prevent their pregnancies and abort their babies, of course.

From the American Life League:

Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas has offered to provide free birth control pills at its Houston clinics to individuals with a Mississippi or Louisiana driver's license. The organization undoubtedly knows that thousands of Gulf Coast residents have already found refuge in Texas, and thousands of people currently housed in the New Orleans Superdome will soon be on their way by bus caravan to Houston's Astrodome, in the hometown of this Planned Parenthood affiliate.

"In New York City in 2001, Planned Parenthood used the 9/11 attacks to publicize its programs by offering free contraceptives and abortions for the week after the terrorists struck," said Sedlak. "Now the organization is exploiting one of the worst natural disasters in American history for cheap publicity by offering one month's supply of free birth control and so-called emergency contraception to victims of Katrina.

"I'm sure Planned Parenthood would claim it is not a publicity stunt," said Sedlak, "but how else do you explain the fact that Planned Parenthood lists its clinics in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana that are closed because of the storm, along with a listing of the clinics' phone numbers? If the clinics are closed, you don't need the phone numbers - unless you are trying to drum up future business. If Planned Parenthood really wants to help, it should donate a portion of the millions of dollars in profits it makes every year to aid in the victims' plights.

"While Planned Parenthood's latest stunt is disgusting and utterly inappropriate, it is not surprising," said Sedlak. "The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is out to promote its own agenda and will stop at nothing to take advantage of an opportunity to do so."

Shining Brute

One of my very favorite people in the world, Brute Force is performing this Saturday night at 10 p.m. at Otto's Shrunken Head, a tiki bar at 538 E. 14th St. between A and B, otherwise known as A Funky Dive Way the Heck Out in the East Village. I believe admission is free.

Brute has a fascinating history. He was a member of the Tokens during the mid-1960s and wrote songs for the likes of the Chiffons (the pre-psychedelic "Nobody Knows What's Going On in My Mind But Me"—hear it on mp3.com), Del Shannon, the Cyrkle, and the Creation. In 1967, he released Confections of Love on Columbia, produced by the formidable John Simon, which contained such surrealist pop gems as "To Sit on a Sandwich." Just last week, walking home after a long day at work, I found myself absently singing, "Oh, to go roaming through the cole slaw/Who cares what for, anymore!/Oh, to skip and frolic through the pickles! Where the Big Sandwich Maker himself/Sits high on his Elysian shelf/And giggles/And prepares for the wurst"—

Excuse me.

After Confections of Love, Brute recorded a lovely little song called "The King of Fuh," all about a beautiful land where there was a king and everyone called him the—well, you know. It's a good illustration of Titus 1:15. The Beatles released it on Apple and it was instantly banned by the BBC, making it the rarest 45 ever released on the label. (If you're not at work and the kids are out of the room, you can hear it by clicking the "MP3" button on entry #038 of the "365 Days" music page.) Brute's subsequent album, Extemporaneous was likewise removed quickly from the market; an original copy now sells for over $1,500.

Following the commercial failure of "King of Fuh" and Extemporaneous, Brute left the music business for a while to do things that were less stressful—like swimming the Bering Strait. The photo above is of him greeting Eskimo children during his 1969 attempt to swim that body of water, which was written up in Life. He also writes poems—one of his best is his one on the death of Terri Schiavo.

In recent years, Brute's taken to playing downtown New York clubs, often backed by a group of young hipsters (as he will be this Saturday). I saw him for the first time last year, doing a solo show, and it was one of the best performances I've ever seen—pure joy. He's an actor, a mimic, a great singer and keyboardist, and most of all, a showman. Picture Al Jolson crossed with Jonathan Winters, performing songs that would make They Might Be Giants green with envy.

Saturday also happens to be my birthday, so if you're up for seeing Brute, wish me a happy 37th. I can't think of a better way to spend it than going out with a dear friend and listening to Brute Force. It even beats sitting on a sandwich.

'New Orleans Is Lost'

From reader James T. Freeman III:

From an emergency notice put on WWL-TV's Web site, which mirrors a bulletin they just had on TV (I'm watching online):

****ALL RESIDENTS ON THE EAST BANK OF ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON REMAINING IN THE METRO AREA ARE BEING TOLD TO EVACUATE AS EFFORTS TO SANDBAG THE LEVEE BREAK HAVE ENDED. THE PUMPS IN THAT AREA ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL SOON AND 9 FEET OF WATER IS EXPECTED IN THE ENTIRE EAST BANK. WITHIN THE NEXT 12-15 HOURS****

As all of us native Louisianians know, the "entire East bank" constitutes all of New Orleans, Metairie, etc.

The question of New Orleans' survival as a city was in some question an hour ago. Now, I think the question may have been answered. New Orleans will not be habitable for a very long time, and then only after the expenditure of unfathomable treasure.

May God have mercy. Lord have mercy. I am out of words for prayer other than that. Lord have mercy.

I think I am going to go cry now.

Please pray for the victims and their families, and donate to relief organizations such as the Salvation Army.

Troll Alert

If fellow bloggers would like to ban the troll who left a vulgar threat under the name "Karla Marx" in the comments section of a recent post of mine, her IP address is 216.139.154.190, which resolves to resnick.nyct.net.

No RespectBy Dawn Patrol Guestblogger The Raving Atheist

"I don’t get no respect," complained the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield. He was a lucky man, if you consider how "respect" is defined by the folks over at the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Professor George Orwell -- I mean Professor Betty B. Hoskins –- explains that you gotta be cruel to be kind:

Honoring The Cells That Are Gifted: Respecting What We Destroy

We began with the concern that our national debate exhibits simplistic “either/or” reasoning, which states that either human stem cell research is wrong because human life is precious, or human stem cell research is good for the advance of knowledge and medical cures for human suffering. Can we get beyond the "either/or" arguments, and instead find a way to regard human stem cells as both worthy of respect and useful tools toward potential cures for serious human diseases?

* * *

The concept "respecting what we destroy" clarifies the hES [human embryonic stem cell] issues, I believe.

The concepts "life is death” and "right is wrong" are equally clarifying, I believe. Lest one think that Prof. Hoskins, like Dangerfield, was merely joking, she shames the reader into accepting the true gravity of the matter. "Respecting what one destroys should include behaviors such as an attitude of regret and some sense of loss, conjoined with some display of that regret and acknowledgment of loss." For those who remain morally dense, she offers a few practical applications of her thesis:

Native American respect for animals hunted as food; Japanese [Buddhist] Mizuko kuyo statuary images that are part of women’s memorial services for their aborted fetuses; young American writer Naomi Wolf’s advocacy of Jewish mystical tradition practices of tikkun, or mending; dissection of human cadavers by medical students (this author would add, when followed by memorial services of thanks for knowledge and skill gained).

This author would add, "and serial killer Ted Bundy's vow to his dates that he would still 'respect' them in the morning." My objection to these analogies isn’t their ineptness but their accuracy. The main problem is really one of etiquette: traditionally, the recipients of thanks or apologies are alive to receive them. Perhaps this flaw could be remedied by restricting the practice to medical research facilitated by bank robbery: the polite notes of gratitude and regret would not be lost upon the tellers.

For the simplistic among you who are still confused, I refer you to the RCRC’s glossary, "Words of Choice." Although nowhere does it offer a definition of "respect," it sheds light on the meanings of some other terms relevant to the stem cell debate. The introductory paragraphs dispel the "misleading" media propaganda that abortion is a matter of "life and death." The entry for "Post-Abortion Syndrome" explains that the disorder is a myth: the reports of nightmares and feelings of guilt are not "scientifically or medically proven" insofar as "positive feelings" predominate in those who have chosen. The dictionary omits the definition of "logic," but the logic seems to be this: the killing of a embryo outside the womb (where it poses no conceivable threat to anyone) is a "destroying" act which should occasion deep regret, whereas the same act in utero is a passionless non-killing.

To be fair, Prof. Hoskins considered other options before deciding to respect, honor and destroy the most gifted cells:

One suggestion (heuristic and discussion-provoking, I presume) was that destruction or study of embryos is best justified by “simply stripping them of any value whatsoever.” While reflection on this stark proposal is both appropriate to philosophers’ style of rational discourse and unlikely to change public opinion or governmental policy, it helps us understand the dilemmas of a dualistic choice, which would require us to set aside strongly-held value positions.

She rejected this approach, apparently because setting aside strongly-held value positions is reserved for those who engage in cannibalistic orgies or write pro-choice glossaries. She also briefly entertained the suggestion to "'continue to reframe the problem until a question can be asked whose answer will incorporate all of the pertinent values' . . . [t]hat is, change the question." Unfortunately, she changed the question before explaining why avoiding the issue wouldn’t suffice.

If she’s still open to suggestions, I have yet another option. Instead of respecting what you destroy, remember that destroying isn’t respectful. You don’t have to change the question. Just change the answer.

Pray for Gulf Coast Hurricane Victims

While news coverage is focusing on relief that New Orleans was spared a direct hit, Gulf Coast residents are suffering terribly, and there's concern that there could be more victims:

In the parishes of Plaquemines and Terrebonne, officials said they were particularly concerned about commercial fisherman who had decided to remain on their boats.

"My biggest concern is the loss of life," said State Sen. Walter Boasso. "We have a lot of people down there hiding in their attics, and I don't know if we will get to them fast enough."

In Mississippi, Barbour said many people suffered from what he called "hurricane fatigue," deciding not to evacuate this time after having done so in the past only to be spared.

"We pray that those people are OK," he said. "But we don't know."

At reader jjoyce's suggestion, I ask you to please pray for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. If you'd like to donate towards relief, one charity that's doing good work is the Salvation Army.

Attention Bachelor Bloggers:Are You Nerd Enough?

In honor of the new "Geek Chic movement popularized by "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and the upcoming film "The Baxter," next Sunday's "Blog On!" will spotlight bachelor bloggers of the lovable-nerd variety. I'll be writing the column this Wednesday night; in the meantime, I'd welcome recommendations of bloggers. They have to be straight, male (I'll follow up with a female one if there's interest), and single (divorced or widowed is OK). They also can't be on the make—that is, their blogs can't focus on their search for an available and interested female. (That, I'm sorry to say, excludes The Anonymous Blogger. Rather, they should have a particular interest or passion that's evident to readers of their blog, something that would make an easy hook to pique readers' interest—like Charles G. Hill and his Femmes Invisible Database.

Identi-T

Reader James T. Freeman sends a clip from an Associated Press story, along with some introductory lines that will be familiar to some readers. Here's his e-mail as I received it:

Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis,
Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis,
Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.

From an Associated Press story on tourists stranded in New Orleans:

Tina and Bryan Steven, of Forest Lake, Minn., sat glumly on the sidewalk outside their hotel in the French Quarter.

"We're choosing the best of two evils," said Bryan Steven. "It's either be stuck in the hotel or stuck on the road. ... We'll make it through it."

His wife, wearing a Bourbon Street T-shirt with a lewd message, interjected: "I just don't want to die in this shirt."

Expect one more, unrelated post later today...

Separating the Sheep from the Gloats

Some 57 passengers walked away from a plane crash in Peru's Amazon jungle last week, while about 31 died. The newspaper where I work called it a "miracle."

Looking at the photographs of the crash site, I had to agree that it was a miracle that anyone survived. But calling it that seemed dissonant in light of the recent Air France flight that crash-landed in Toronto, where all the passengers and crew survived without serious injury. The Peru crash, by contrast, certainly wasn't a miracle to the families of the dead.

In that sense, The Raving Atheist makes an important point in his post "God Approves New Gloating Rules for Plane Crash Survivors." I believe, unlike him, that we should always thank God for delivering us out of troubles. But, as he suggests, that doesn't mean we should assume that He delivered us because of anything we did to deserve deliverance—or that those whom He did not deliver were somehow worse than us.

Jesus himself asserts some of the Raving Atheist's sentiments in Luke 13:1-5:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Robert W. Martin has excellent observations on this topic in his essay "Jesus on Terrorism," which is worth reading in its entirety. In one section, he quotes R.C. Sproul:

In effect what Jesus was saying was this: "You people are asking the wrong question. You should be asking me, 'Why didn’t that tower fall on my head?'" Jesus rebuked the people for putting their amazement in the wrong place. In two decades of teaching theology I have had countless students ask me why God doesn’t save everybody. Only once did a student come to me and say, "There is something I just can’t figure out. Why did God redeem me?"

On another theological note, one aspect of the Peru plane-crash story that the news media neglected to mention is that the accident occurred on the feast day of St. Rose of Lima, Peru's patron saint.
* * *
The Raving Atheist currently is soliciting answers to the question of whether the Devil, in operating Hell, is an agent of God—"the warden running God's prison." He seems genuinely curious—if you have an answer for him, respond in the comments section of his blog.

Lauer Cowers

This tidbit arrived yesterday from reader Brian Kennelly:

Matt Lauer was doing a piece on Scott Peterson. At one point he said,"Scott Peterson has been convicted of killing two pe..., er, uh, of killing his pregnant wife..."

Apparently, he could not bring himself to say "of killing two people," even though, objectively, that was the finding of the court. He might have had to admit that an unborn child is a person.

Dawn Greets the Son-Worshiper

"I knew when I was in 4th grade that I was gay. I don’t know how the thought got into my mind—whether by men, by the devil or by myself, but it was there and I simply knew it."

Nathan Sheets may not be the only Christian ex-gay blogger. But I think it's safe to say that, with New Love in the Son, he's the newest. And I know that with his bravery, candor, and wisdom that belies his years (he's only 20), he's up there with the best of them.

He writes in one entry that "the goal of the ex-gay is not to become straight, but rather to become holy."

Further on, he says:

I used to believe that I was going to have to be single my whole life, and I was OK with that. But since my repentance and devotion to being holy (not straight!) I have experienced a rather unexpected healing from Jesus! Many ex-gays don't think they can ever be straight--they might be thinking, "Nathan, you don't know me, there's no way I can ever be straight." I used to think the same way when a mentor of mine dared to suggest total freedom to me! Now I find myself moving rapidly in the direction of getting married, and wanting to get married! Blessed be the name of the Lord!

I believe that anyone who has overcome a seemingly insurmountable affliction through faith in the Lord's healing power—including addiction or depression—can relate to Nathan's hope and his zeal for spreading the word.

On his main blog, he offers "The Gospel for Gay People, fully rejecting the happy-clappy, keep-on-truckin', name-it-and-claim-it attitude that passes for evangelism in many churches:

The Good News never changes. This Good News is this:

You are a law-breaker.

Because you are a law-breaker, you are going to hell.

But because Adonai loves you, there's a way to get out of Hell.

Repent and believe in the name of His Son, Yeshua, and you will be saved.

That is the Gospel. Notice that the Good News is not "Jesus loves you, come to Him" or "He will give you peace, come to Him." I hate it when Christians say that to non-Christians. If we tell Christians how to be saved before they realize they need to be saved, they will come to Messiah under false ideas!

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1), but "how then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).

We were not made to live in guilt and shame. Guilt and shame are gifts that are meant to show us the gap between who we are and who we can and should be in the Lord. They're not a resting place, but they're a necessary springboard in order for us to reach higher things.

For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! (2 Corinthians 7:10-11)

I don't long for the kind of self-pitying, hopeless sorrow that Paul describes as "the sorrow of the world" that "produces death." But there are many times when I wish I had more "godly sorrow."

Every time I realize the distance between myself and God, however much it distresses me, it ultimately brings me a greater understanding and closeness to Him. I thank Nathan Sheets for reminding me of this, and for his courage in publicly revealing his own prayerful efforts to become holy.

What Is Man?By Guest Blogger Robert N. Going of The Judge Report

I was a boy, once, lying in the back yard, gazing up at the stars and contemplating the enormity of the universe, not unlike the shepherds of past millenia. When I grew older and learned the actual distances of the stars my awe only grew.

I was 18 and just out of high school when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Armstrong and Aldrin got the fame, but the guy in the orbiter overhead, Michael Collins, got in the last word on the way home, quoting from Psalm 8:

When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained;
What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?

Which leads me, naturally, to sex.

Any two dogs in the street can copulate and reproduce, not likely even connecting the two. We share much in common with the other animals, including DNA. And yet, Man alone, of all the creatures, has the ability to inspire others, through art and poetry, through courage and character, through self-sacrificing love.

Animals reproduce. Man procreates. We believers profess that at the beginning of each new life is the creation of an immortal soul, created not by us, but by God.

Just think about that for a minute. If we believe that there is eternal life, a life for us beyond this one, then we must accept that that life begins with a unique soul to go along with our unique DNA.

Therefore, at the moment of conception there exists not just a sperm and an egg, but the all-loving touch of the Creator of the heavens, the moon and the stars. The loving act of procreation joins with the ultimate Love, the Maker of us all, who bothers to become involved directly at each of our beginnings.

What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?

*****************

And now from the Masterwork of God to ordinary everyday men. Much has been written and discussed about the psychological and emotional effects of non-marital sex on women, but hardly anything about its effects on men. There are some good reasons for that.

There are some things men just don’t want to discuss, like how their partners look in that new outfit, or the shrinkage factor, or post-coital guilt.

There, I said it. The fact that it has a name shows that there is some universality to the concept.

Split seconds after release, ladies, most men undergo an immediate transformation. Moments earlier we are completely lost in the act. All of a sudden the brain kicks in, screaming “What have you done?!?!” Which we are usually pretty good at covering up, but it’s there.

I’m not saying sex isn’t good. It’s great. Feels wonderful.

But why, then, is it possible to experience the most terrible sense of loneliness when locked together with another at the end of mechanical sex? When both partners enter the act for gratification, where is the unity, where is the sacrifice, where is the love, where is the inspiration?

The dignity with which we treat our life partners in marriage, the joining of ourselves in a larger context, the sacrifices we make for ourselves and our children, the making of something that is more us than me is what love is truly about. And the joining of that love with Love Himself! It just doesn’t get any better than that.

Why isn’t that obvious?

Grover There

My friend Michael Lynch, composer of the Dawn Patrol and Gaits of Eden jingles (click on the pages' logos), writes: "One of my all-time favorite books is now online in its entirety."

I can assure you that it is safe for work. Enjoy!

Planned Parenthood Leaves a Pain-Wracked Woman on the 'Wire'

One of the reasons Planned Parenthood advocates offer for why it deserves the quarter-billion that it receives in taxpayer funding each year is that the organization does more than abortions—it provides "health care."

Reading blog entries from impoverished youths gives one an idea of just what Planned Parenthood means by "health care." For example, it means inserting an intrauterine device into a young woman's womb and then refusing to take it out when the patient's wracked with pain.

Well, "refusing" is a bit of an exaggeration. Planned Parenthood's quite happy to undo the damage—if the woman will only wait five weeks for an appointment.

A 26-year-old who calls herself D [UPDATE:name deleted at her request] wrote yesterday:

I made myself get up and took some Tylenol. Called Planned Parenthood and the sickeningly cheerful receptionist on the other end of the line informed me that September was one of their busiest months and I'd be lucky if I wasn't rescheduled again on the 28th. Yeah, that's right. I have to wait over a month and they might reschedule that appt.
If its an emergency go to the hospital....I want PP to take care of it so I don't run up any more debt with the hospital...

D's online bio says that she's a mom to "4 or 5 cats"—no real kids, apparently—and that her interests include "rape survivor" [sic] and "polyamory." She doesn't sound like the best candidate for an IUD, given that, as WebMD's experts write, "Women who haven't had children are more likely to expel the IUD or have more pain and cramping after insertion." In addition, if D is a rape survivor, the wire IUD is a singularly invasive form of contraception, especially as it may become embedded in the uterine wall, requiring an even more invasive dilation-and-curettage.

Then there's the "polyamory." The IUD's risks include pelvic inflammatory disease, and the risk of contracting that disease increases with multiple sexual partners. All things considered, with all the contraception options available, Planned Parenthood appears to have exercised remarkably poor judgment in its treatment of this young woman.

No, it's worse than poor judgment. It's tragic. And you and I paid for it. D lists her residence as Spokane, Wash., where Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest offers free "health care" and contraception for low-income clients through the state's Medicaid-funded Take Charge program.

Go back through D's blog entries and you'll see that, between her bragging about mixing alcohol and painkillers, she's very ill.

August 8: "Musta been something I ate...my breakfast is trying to come up on me...Stupid abdominal pain, took some Tylenol, hope it helps."

August 17 : "Felt really sick again yesterday afternoon, didn't eat dinner and had strong abdominal cramping again. I hope Planned Parenthood doesn't reschedule my girlie exam again."

August 19: "My abdomen is f[---]ing hurting so badly right now...I took some heavy duty pain killers earlier. Had to reschedule my stupid PAP/IUD check appt. because my cycle came early. I wanted to get a pair of needle nose pliers and yank the damn [thing] out earlier today, stupid displaced IUD."

Her cycle came early. One symptom of pelvic inflammatory disease is irregular menstrual bleeding.

Fast-forward four days, to yesterday's post, where the "sickeningly cheerful" Planned Parenthood receptionist informed D "that September was one of their busiest months and [she]'d be lucky if [she] wasn't rescheduled again on [September] 28th."

Did D tell the receptionist in one of her many phone calls to Planned Parenthood that the IUD felt "displaced" and that she was experiencing "strong abdominal cramping"? Given her many complaints on her blog, and her many efforts to gain an appointment, it's hard to imagine that she would omit that fact.

One of the major symptoms of pelvic inflammatory disease, besides the abnormal bleeding, is lower abdominal pain. Planned Parenthood knows this; its own IUD fact sheet instructs patients to tell their clinician immediately if they have "severe abdominal cramping."

According to a government fact sheet, untreated pelvic inflammatory disease can cause chronic pelvic pain and scarring in about 20 percent of patients. That's in addition to infertility and a risk of ectopic pregnancy.

D calls herself a "pagan," and it's no wonder. Planned Parenthood's treatment leaves her without a prayer.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America's annual report shows that it received over a quarter-billion dollars in taxpayer funding in fiscal 2004. If you do not want to see your tax dollars go towards Planned Parenthood's dangerous "health care," contact your senators or your representative.

UPDATE: A commenter who identifies herself as D writes:

I request that you remove this or at least take out the direct quotes taken out of context/misinterpreted from my LJ as well as my name. I refuse to be 'a statistical case study' for whatever right wing political agenda this article was intended to highlight.

Freedom of press is one thing; defamation of character through misquoting and asserting religious convictions on an individual and calling it an entry is an entirely different thing. I am a pagan libertarian with a twisted sense of humor which can at times be discordian and my journal reflects that.

I have removed D's name as her request. Because her blog is a public blog, unlike those that are protected by passwords, I believe I have the right to report what it says as news. I have included several links to her blog so that readers may see whether the quotes here have been taken out of context.

I apologize to D if my actions have offended her, but I believe people have a right to know what qualifies as "health care" by Planned Parenthood's standard—especially when we as taxpayers are paying for this seriously harmful and negligent treatment. I pray she gets the treatment she needs.

Fondue the Right Thing

Did someone say pro-lifers are cheesy? In Nathan Sheets's case, it's justified. He's "Shutting Pro-Choicers Up...With Fondue."

'A Superhero for Choice' Rides Again

From Dawn Patrol guestblogger The Raving Atheist comes this inspired smackdown of Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice". It's inspired by dialogue from the actual cartoon, but taken to its logical conclusion. Like the original, it's not for the weak of stomach—click on the comic for a full-size view:

De 'Profoundness'

[12/21/06: GREETINGS, SALON READERS! You're reading an old Dawn Patrol item that I wrote very late one night, many moons ago. My more recent blog entries are more reflective of my current views. Also, the theological topics I mention in this post come across better (and minus the bloggy snark) in my book; check out this online excerpt.]

The journalists who blog at GetReligion look for "religion ghosts" in news stories—parts of stories where the writer has conspicuously failed to address a religious or spiritual issue.

Elizabeth Sandoval's USA Today op-ed "A Neo-Feminist's View of Abstinence" has a religion ghost so big, you could drive a Mack truck through it.

The essay's an articulate explanation of why the author—who's 32 and single—believes women like herself should be abstinent until marriage. Its sentiments are surprisingly conservative for a mainstream newspaper. Sandoval delivers several smackdowns to popular culture, especially the inescapable "Sex and the City," and takes apart typical rationalizations for sex before marriage.

The ghost appears at the end of the piece, when Sandoval suddenly introduces her belief that sex has an essential spiritual component:

Women are non-self-respecting because they willingly sacrifice such an important part of their being for just a few moments of pleasure. And they're oblivious because they don't contemplate the profoundness of sex.

Women give it up as if it's nothing. When in fact, it is everything.

I know why Sandoval saved that zinger for the end. Those who agree with her will know what she means about "the profoundness of sex" without her explaining. As for those who don't—well, Sandoval just doesn't have 2,000 words to explain the theology of the body.

Yet, even allowing for the limitations of space, there's an important spiritual fact of singlehood that's missing from her arguments: pain. Just before her observation on "non-self-respecting" sexually active single women, she writes:

Many women today are weak-minded in that they readily accept society's portrayal of sexual norms. The people on The O.C. are doing it. Paris Hilton, as she's hosing down that Bentley, appears ready to do it. And more important, many people they actually know are doing it.

As a fellow chaste woman in her 30s, I know it's easy to write off sexually active singles as "weak-minded." But I don't think it's truly wise to do so, any more than it is for a recovering alcoholic to label his old drinking buddies as people who just need a little more will power. Sexual activity outside of marriage is a search for pleasure and, like alcohol or drug abuse, it is very often an attempt to escape pain.

In making a conscious decision to be chaste until marriage, one is not merely guarding one's heart, as Sandoval suggests. One is allowing oneself to be, in a sense, more vulnerable—because one has to find meaning elsewhere in one's life.

Keeping things casual in our casual-sex culture means divorcing sex from the aspects that physically bond people—the mixing of body fluids, the creation of new life. Two people merge antiseptically, their bodies touching but never risking lasting change in one another's life.

The jarring feeling of separation that a contracepting single woman feels after sex isn't just the perspective-shift from being connected to being apart. It's the realization, on a primal level, that even the most exciting contracepted intercourse is coitus interruptus. She hasn't fully given the gift of her body, neither has she allowed her partner to give all that he has to offer.

It's this contracepting culture that tells single women that because—like men—they can have sex without risk of pregnancy, they should likewise be able to have it without risk of emotional attachment. This is the Big Lie of the post-Pill age, and the fact that many women try to believe it doesn't make them "weak-minded," as Sandoval asserts. Rather, it shows that their desire is to be filled—not only in the physical sense, but in the sense of the proverbial God-shaped vacuum.

Good morning! I've juggled the times of the posts to keep the "Superhero" one uptop—do check out the Harris brothers' new guest post below.

The Washington Examiner Slams Planned Parenthood's 'Superhero'

Project Max—the Dawn Patrol's campaign to enlighten the news media to Planned Parenthood's vile "Superhero for Choice"—bears unexpected fruit today with "Planned Parenthood Takes Low Road," an editorial in the Washington Examiner.

The placement of the editorial in a Washington, D.C., paper is noteworthy because it's sure to be read by someone on Capitol Hill. As reader Ranting Raven discovered during a visit to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office, politicians do not take very kindly to seeing taxpayer-funded organizations depict them as numbskulls who should be re-educated in boiling oil.

The Examiner's editors write:

Apparently, the lesson to be learned [from "A Superhero for Choice"] is that abortions are OK, especially if it means less welfare payments later. The animation ends on the high note of referring to the Rev. Jerry Falwell as a "schmuck."

The video is a shameful and disrespectful take on the very sensitive issue of abortion and reproductive rights, where good, reasonable people disagree for good and reasonable reasons. By taking the low road and appealing to the lowest - and juvenile - common denominator, Planned Parenthood demeans its opponents and, even more, its supporters.

If you haven't yet seen the video, it's still accessible through Planned Parenthood Golden Gate's Web site. The organization's simply hidden the link so that it's no longer advertised on its page—but the cartoon is still housed on PPGG's server. If they've taken it down by the time you read this, a number of bloggers have taken it upon themselves to host the cartoon, making sure Planned Parenthood can't cover its tracks. You can also read a transcript of the animation via Shoutlast.com (click on one of the links on that page for the format you prefer).

Click here to see how "A Superhero for Choice" was featured on PPGG's Web page before the organization removed the link with no explanation and no apology.

Commenting For Newbies(A Reminder For The Rest of Us)

[I asked prizewinning debaters Brett and Alex Harris to write an entry about the rules of debate as they should apply to blog commenters. The following is their response. I think they've done a beautiful job, and I've learned some things from it myself—especially Principle #8. Also, please note that this post is cross-posted (with better formatting and fewer typos) at Conscientious Contemplation.— Dawn]

You Have Entered "The Comment Zone"

It is crucial to a vibrant and healthy comment section for participants to understand the purpose of discussion, and to possess a proper respect for their fellow contributors. Whether you maintain your own blog, comment on other blogger's posts, or both, you have most likely been frustrated by the lack of proper argumentation and the seeming epidemic of disrespect, primarily among your opponents (Insight #1: They feel the same way towards you).

The truth is that we all can use a helpful reminder every so often as to how we should conduct ourselves in the high-intensity role of "the commentator's commenter."

For that reason we present "Commenting For 'Newbies' (A 'Reminder' For The Rest of Us)" as an invaluable resource for bloggers and their readers; an aide-mémoire, if you will. Yes, logic, evidence, and respect still exist and can be realized—even in your comment section.

The Purpose of Argumentation

Critical to proper argumentation is an understanding of why we argue; we argue in hopes of persuading dissenting opinions to conform to our own. If we disagree, it is because we think we are right and others are wrong. We take the time to discuss our disagreements in hopes of proving the validity of our views. It is frustrating, therefore, when we find ourselves perpetually clashing with our opponents, while making seemingly no headway towards our goal of changing their minds.

In fact, at times it can feel as if, were we to publicly claim that rabbits exist, our opponents would deny it; even if one hopped up, said, "What's up, Doc?" and starting burrowing into their heads. How do we get past these confounding doldrums and arrive at a place from which the discussion can progress in an intelligent manner?

Here are three steps to improve your skills of argumentation:

Step One: Remember that your opponents have come to their conclusions using more or less the same rational process you have. The difference is not necessarily their intellect, but rather the information they had at their disposal and the values they hold.

Step Two: Understand that this means your opponent feels just as confident about the accuracy of his or her position as you do about yours, and will only be persuaded otherwise if you prove that their information or values are out of line.

Step Three: Realize that successful argumentation will only take place when you make it your goal to inform and persuade, by supplying additional bits (or chunks) of information and by addressing the values behind your opponent's conclusions.

Eight Principles For Logical & Respectful Discussion

The key to respectful, profitable argumentation is to respect others and to be respected. You respect others by acting civilly and arguing reasonably. You cause others to respect you by not acting like a fool in your manner or in your argumentation. Here are eight principles that allow you to do both:

NUMBER ONE: Understand the "classical" view of tolerance.

The classical view of tolerance lends itself much more readily to intelligent argumentation than does the modern view. It teaches that, while we may strongly disagree with their opinions, we still treat the person behind them with respect.

• DO feel free to disagree, even strongly, with other people, and say so!
• DO feel free to permanently demolish opposing viewpoints. (Good luck!)
• DO NOT attempt to demolish opposing "people."

NUMBER TWO: "No 'ad hominem' attacks, you moron!"

Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. Remember that the character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

• DO NOT stoop to name-calling (moron, idiot, etc.)
• DO NOT imply negative monikers onto people simply because they disagree. (i.e. "Anyone who's even slightly intelligent will believe that cows are people too.")

NUMBER THREE: Eschew Obscenity & Prohibit Profanity

The use of inappropriate language and shocking statements is a sure sign that the author lacks the ability to communicate their position in a calm and reasonable manner. It shows tremendous disdain for others and will not be allowed on respectable blogs.

• DO NOT be upset when your comment is deleted for inappropriate language.
• DO NOT be upset when you IP address is banned for multiple offenses.

NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.

This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that you carefully guard yourself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.

Logic includes everything from complex syllogisms to plain ol' cause-and-effect. Evidence can take the form of examples, statistics, and/or quotations from authorities in the field. Supported arguments stand until refuted. Unsupported arguments do not deserve a response and might as well not exist.

• DO feel free to confirm other people's points without providing additional support.
• DO NOT make additional arguments or publicize your
  disagreement with someone else's position without providing adequate
  support.

NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.

There is no surer sign of inadequacy on the part of a debater than when they take issue with some small "error" on the part of their opponent, while ignoring the main point/s their adversary is trying to make.

If you are unable to refute your opponent's position, don't insult his or her spelling, grammar, or insignificant deviations from fact. Your opponent is most likely correct, and their small errors have nothing to do with the overall truth or falsity of the proposition they defend. Don't make a fool of yourself by being a sore loser.

• DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
• DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent.

NUMBER SIX: Debating When Less Is More.

A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point. Such an approach is not only unfair to your opponent, but it really isn't argumentation at all. These kinds of "question avalanches" can hardly be responded to in the confines of a comment section, but will often foster animosity.

The same is true of those with too much time on their hands (or a gift for speed writing) who present far too many arguments at one time in hopes of "burying" their opponent under the supposed "empirical" weight. Both of these abuses inhibit true argumentation and inevitably degrade the quality of a discussion. Respect yourself and your opponents at all times by using moderation in your argumentation and questioning.

• DO feel free to ask pertinent and probing questions about your opponent's position.
• DO NOT expect answers for loaded questions.
• DO NOT ask loaded questions.
• DO feel free to make powerful and relevant arguments
  against your opponent's position.
• DO NOT expect answers to your 5 page tome.
• DO NOT write 5 page tomes.

NUMBER SEVEN: Do your own research.

Remember that your opponents are busy people who are taking time out of their day to discuss relevant issues with you. Do not place an excessive burden on them by requiring them to go "off-site" to read lengthy articles or study ancient philosophers, scientists, etc. If Aristotle makes "your" point then "you" should be able to make the argument. Your opponent certainly will not (and shouldn't have to) make it for you.

• DO feel free to provide links to outside sources for your opponent's consideration.
• DO NOT expect your opponent to read them unless you make them want to. (i.e. "If you go read Maxwell's five-foot bookshelf, then you'd agree with me!" never works)
• DO feel free to support your arguments with outside resources. Just make sure you summarize what the resource says. Otherwise your opponents will consider your argument unsupported until they go read/see the support. They most likely never will.

NUMBER EIGHT: The fallacy of the majority.

When the majority of participants in a discussion hold your position, it is common to starting acting as if the last seven principles no longer apply to you. You feel you can destroy the dissenter, along with their position, since you have so many like-minded chums. However, the majority has no more right to silence the opinion of a minority through disrespectful, improper argumentation, than the minority would have, if it was able, to silence the opinion of the majority using the same methods. Victory by means of respectful, logical argumentation is true victory. Victory by any other means is no victory at all.

• DO feel free to destroy dissenting opinions using
  respectful, logical argumentation.
• DO NOT silence dissenting opinions by majority "piranha attacks."

About the Authors: Brett and Alex Harris have competed for four years in high-school speech and debate, including policy and value debate, persuasive platform speaking, limited preparation categories, and even interpretative events. Over the past two years they have combined for six national titles, making it into the final rounds over 18 times. They have been contributing authors to several debate sourcebooks and have coached high-school speech and debate clubs in Oregon, Washington, and Maryland. They currently author the blogs The Rebelution (Brett) and Conscientious Contemplation (Alex).

WomenvChoice

[Welcome again to guestblogger The Raving Atheist:]

Feministing.com Executive Editor Jessica Valenti -- who also runs NARAL's Bush v Choice blog -- is infuriated by New York Times columnist John Tierney's use of abortion polls. He wrote:

It's true that pregnancy is a uniquely female burden and that most pro-life politicians are men -- but then, so are most pro-choice politicians. There's no gender gap in opinion on the issue. Polls have long shown that men are no more hostile than women are to abortion rights. In a New York Times/CBS News Poll earlier this year, men were slightly less inclined than women to say that abortion should be outlawed.

The fact that most women are pro-life doesn't quite fit Ms. Valenti's agenda. But she finds an interesting if somewhat convoluted work-around:

Perhaps there isn't a gender gap in how many people consider themselves pro-choice, but there's certainly one when you take a look at anti-choice leaders. The fact that leaders in anti-choice groups are overwhelmingly men (insanely misogynist men, I should add) isn't coincidental. And numbers aside -- no matter how many men are pro-choice, abortion is still a women's issue. To try and separate it from women is not only naive, it's insulting.

Insulting, yes, but to whom? If the minority of men who lead the movement are insane, what are the majority of women who support it? Insanely masochistic? Just plain stupid? Or is their support, unlike that of the men, just "coincidental"? At a minimum, the suggestion here is that female pro-lifers are mindless sheeple who, lacking the capacity for sufficient moral reasoning, are merely following the big mean billy goats over the cliff. That certainly seems far more paternalistic than anything Mr. Tierney said.

It's Ms. Valenti, not Mr. Tierney, who is separating the issue from women. The only stats that seem to matter to her argument are those involving the minority of men and, among them, the subminority she characterizes as their leaders. That the identical views are held by the majority of women is an inconvenient irrelevancy.

So just say what mean, Ms. Valenti: women are gullible idiots who need to be led to the Promised Land of Choice by you. I'll help you out. I'm in a similar position. The majority of atheists are gullible pro-choice eugenicists who need to be led out of their moral idiocy by me.

Rave On

Yesterday I received another guest-blog submission from the Raving Atheist.

The entry's well-written and makes a worthy point about the delusionary mindset of those who argue for abortion rights. I plan to use it. But before I do, I have a topic that I'd like to submit for discussion.

I've read other writings by the Raving Atheist and I see that his blog is a strong rallying point for those seeking affirmation that there is no God. Although I believe his pro-life views are sincere, it's quite possible that in posting to my blog, he wishes to draw readers away from faith. Moreover, even if that's not his motive, it's a risk that's present anytime I draw attention to him and his blog.

Beyond that, there is, I believe, a larger issue: In a world where life is being attacked on so many fronts—from abortion, to embryonic stem-cell research, to in vitro fertilization that destroys embryos—should pro-lifers have to pass a theological litmus test? Should we avoid atheists the way we avoid the violent fringe of the anti-abortion movement? Or should we accept them, as I do the Raving Atheist, confident that we can filter out their anti-faith message—just as they are confident that they can ignore the faith we demonstrate to them?

Personally, I believe, in a wider sense, the abortion-rights movement is far more anti-God—and more dangerous to more souls—than the Raving Atheist's 95 theses or whatever. Likewise, I believe that the Raving Atheist's defenses of life are by their nature more powerful than his attacks on faith—whether he intends them to be or not.

It's, Like, So Totally Cool or Whatever

Submitted for your consideration, via commenter "Nola"'s better half, Meghan Cox Gurdon on girls' magazines.

Triumph of the Wool

On this Saturday morning, if I knew where to find the gloriously existentialist Warner Brothers cartoons starring Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf, I would share them with my mom (who is doing much better, thank you). Happily, there is a very fine online article about the animated duo.

If you have a moment to spare and would like to share your observations on the time-clock-punching pair's antics, please leave a comment.

Julia Sweeney and Nick Vasallo Respond

Both Julia Sweeney and Planned Parenthood "A Superhero for Choice" composer Nick Vasallo have posted responses to my entries about them—Julia's comment in response to "Sweeney's Swine,"* and Nick's comment in response to "'A Superhero for Choice'— Behind the Music.'"

For those who may be new to this blog, please remember, if you respond to Julia or Nick, to phrase your comment politely. Thanks!

*I give Sweeney extra credit for politeness in light of the original title of "Sweeney's Swine," which I haven't fully removed, as other blogs who've linked to it would then have to change their links. Plus, it's not every day that I get my theology corrected by a Raving Atheist.

NARAL: Pro-Choice, Anti-Speech

[Editor's note: The following guest post was sent in by the Raving Atheist and is most welcome. Please don't be daunted by its length; it leads to an important point.]

Contributed by guest blogger The Raving Atheist, a/k/a The Unaborted Atheist:

Did you ever imagine you'd come to a Christian blog to find an nasty, faith-bashing atheist complain about being banned from a pro-choice site?

Well, here I am.

Earlier this week I was rubber-necking at NARAL Pro-Choice America's site and discovered a link to something called the Bush v Choice Blog. My expectations before clicking weren't particularly high. No matter how "hip" or spontaneous they try to seem, official corporate or organizationally-sponsored blogs are expected to follow the party line and sell the message rather than invite open discussion and debate. I doubted NARAL would risk linking to someone whom it didn't control.

At first glance, BvC confirmed my suspicions: immediately beneath the blog title was NARAL's trademarked logo (did you know that the Statue of Liberty is pro-choice?) But a half-inch below that was a link to this disclaimer: "The views expressed on the blog represent the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or position of NARAL Pro-Choice America . . . [a]ny opinions, recommendations, statements, or other information or content presented or disseminated are those of the respective authors, who are solely responsible for their content." So I thought that perhaps "Jessica," the apparent sole proprietress, might not be on such a short leash.

What's more, the blog had a comment section. Would all points of view be welcomed? It wasn't clear. On the one hand, the disclaimer section declared the blog to be "a place for pro-choice activists to come together and discuss news and actions related to the right to choose" (emphasis supplied). On the other hand, the comment guidelines seemed to impose only limited restriction and implied that dissenters might be granted some leeway. Specifically, they stated that only the following types of comments would be subject to deletion:

• Personal insults to Jessica, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other commenters.


• Any comment deemed to be irrelevant, especially copied, lengthy information from websites.


• Comments reposted in multiple entries of the blog.


• Anti-choice comments that only serve to announce that they do not agree with our pro-choice stance.


• Pro-choice comments that only serve to insult those who are anti-choice.

From the two last rules I gathered that anti-choice comments that involved more than mere naysaying would be permitted, and that perhaps even an effort would be made to provide pro-lifers with a forum free from unnecessary abuse.
So I chimed in. My first two entries replied to Jessica's question: "Is there such a thing as an anti-choice feminist?" Those comments still remain, presumably because (unless the question was rhetorical), it would be bad form to delete the very responses you invited.

But that's as far as I got. Jessica's next post, reprinted in full below with links, was an attack on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (boldface in original):

Roberts' memos reveal more disturbing news

Wow. The fact that Roberts is anti-choice and anti-privacy isn't news. But today's Washington Post reveals some pretty shocking stuff. The article details memos that not only further prove Roberts' commitment to anti-choice nonsense, but also show his straight-up disdain for women's rights in general:

The memo about the Los Angeles service for aborted fetuses is part of a pattern in the documents issued yesterday by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: During his tenure from 1982 to 1986 in the Reagan White House, Roberts staked out conservative positions on a broader array of issues than has previously been known.

He called a federal court decision that sought to guarantee women equal pay to men "a radical redistributive concept." He wrote that a Supreme Court case prohibiting silent prayer in public school "seems indefensible."

What? Equal pay for women is radical?! That's just lovely.

Perceiving a certain level of hypocrisy and inaccuracy, I commented as follows (link included):

(1) The late Rev. George Gardner routinely performed funeral services for aborted late-term fetuses as an employee of Women's Health Care Services P.A. in Kansas, so I can hardly see how Roberts can be faulted for this.

(2) Roberts was opposing the controversial "comparable worth" theory, not "equal pay." They're completely different theories. The Equal Pay Act prohibits paying women less for doing work IDENTICAL to that performed by men; comparable worth attempts to compare the job responsibilities of DIFFERENT jobs (e.g., undertaker vs secretary) and make adjustments for disparities between traditionally "male" and "female" jobs. Comparable worth works where there is evidence that "female" jobs were deliberately devalued due to gender considerations, but ultimately becomes unworkable because formerly "female" job categories can become male-dominated over time and vice versa.

Ideally, all jobs involving equal work should receive equal pay, regardless of the gender of who holds them. I dare say that certain bloggers deserve more than movie stars, but I think you'd agree that that would be a "radical redistributive concept."

(3) When it comes to religion, I have no doubt that Roberts is an ass.

Sorry about point #3, but I am, after all, a Raving Atheist. Also (believe or not) I put that crack in to sugarcoat my response. NARAL, after all, was founded by the atheist Bernard Nathanson (now a pro-life convert to Catholicism) and I figured a little anti-clericalism might disarm Jessica and perhaps even lighten things up.

Nope: the comment had vanished a few hours later when I dropped by to see if there were any responses. At first, I thought I might have merely previewed the comment without pressing the "post" button, so I sent it again. It didn't take; instead I got a message saying that because it was my first comment (??) it was being reviewed for content. I figured this was just some computer glitch until the next morning, when I saw a comment from a "Deine Liebchen" wondering where the response from the "Radical Atheist" had gone. So I knew it had been posted and deleted. An accident? Hardly: a short while later, Deine's comment disappeared as well. My subsequent attempts to repost were futile.

Why have I been banned? I have a few theories. Possibly Jessica felt foolish over the equal pay/comparable worth gaffe. But I think that in a odd way it ultimately all comes down to religion. There is something especially sickening about that link to Rev. Gardner, abortion-financed blesser of late-term abortion clinic fetuses. However secular NARAL may be, and however must it resents religion being used in opposition to its agenda, it is still more ashamed to see religion put in the service of its cause. More ashamed, strangely, than is this Christian blog to put an atheist in the service of its own.

Singular Character

Former judge Robert N. Going has the story of a judge whose obituary you might have missed:

Back in 1993 Nebraska had a parental notification provision for minors seeking an abortion. Under certain circumstances that notification could be waived by a judge. Such a case came before Judge Moylan. He reviewed the case carefully and determined that under the law he was required to grant the relief requested.

Read the whole thing and find out what Judge Moylan did. It's worth it.

Two Fingers...

...can mean very different things, as Karol observes.

Comment on Karol's blog.

FURTHER READING: I've found Barry Verstaendig's three-part series— Part One, Part Two, and Part Three—helpful in explaining why the Jewish people, as represented by Israel, have the right to live in Gaza.

Two more people whose lives have been affected by abortion have left prayer requests in the comments section of Sunday's post. Please read their requests and join me in praying for them. Thanks.

God Bless the Raving Atheist...

...for drawing attention to Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice" and outspokenly standing up for life. The R.A. writes of the cartoon hero's "slaughter of concededly peaceful and non-violent clinic protestors":

Yes, I suppose it’s all tongue-in-cheek, and no, I don’t consider it incitement to murder. But the message is clear enough: the abortion decision has no actual moral content and those who believe otherwise are (as portrayed in the cartoon) foolish, grunting ghouls.

The cartoon cannot be dismissed as an mere aberration or accident. It plainly represents the official policy of PPGG, and was funded out of its $20 million budget. The protagonist “Dian” is deliberately modeled after the organization’s president, Dian Harrison. To date, Planned Parenthood’s national organization has not renounced it or even commented on it.

For nearly a year I have volunteered for a Crisis Pregnancy Clinic. It provides medical assistance, shelter, diapers, toys and other supplies for new and expectant mothers. Some of its clients are recruited from in front of abortion clinics by the “ghouls” so ignorantly portrayed in Superhero. But as demonstrated by the baby pictures lining the CPC’s walls, their “victims” join the ranks of the living rather than the dead.

Read the whole thing.

By the way, Raving Atheist isn't the only one. Contrary to what Planned Parenthood would have you believe, one doesn't have to believe in God to believe that killing unborn life is wrong. Just ask the Atheistic and Agnostic Pro-Life League.

Got a Rebelution!

I learned a new word today: rebelution.

I like it.

It's also the title of a new Christian blog, which I discovered was begun at about the same time as another Christian blog, both by teens with the last name of Harris.

It turns out the bloggers are twins. Homeschooled twins. And I am way too old to be glancing for more than half a second at their glamour photo.

It also turns out that their older brother is the person who's been annoying me quite a bit these past few days, as I'm trying to think of a title for my book and the best possible title has already been taken.

Welcome to the blogosphere, guys. Promise me you won't do any of that cute twin stuff like switching blogs for a day to see if anyone notices.

'A Superhero for Choice':Behind the Music

[Note: This entry describes a grotesque and juvenile film that's only tangentially related to the Planned Parenthood cartoon. Not for the weak of stomach.]

James Taranto writes to me that a tipster (perhaps blogger R.F. Burnhertz) informed him of a bit of trivia regarding Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice."

The composer of the cartoon's music is Nick Vasallo, whose Web site became a place for people to see the animation after Planned Parenthood Golden Gate removed the link to it from their Web site.

Taranto points out that the second video down on Vasallo's Web page features a disgusting depiction of the desecration of an unborn child's corpse.

The video is a trailer for the ultra-crass gore flick "Sinful Wives" (its title has since been changed to "Mine"), and it is the last thing Vasallo did before working on "A Superhero for Choice." In it, as couples chat at a dinner party, a husband suddenly trots out his wife's late-term fetus—which he's apparently been saving in the freezer. He talks about how much it means to him, because it's his too.

The irate wife shows hubby that it's her body to do with what she will, not his. She doesn't say that in so many words, however. Rather, she demonstrates it—by putting the dead baby in the kitchen sink and torching it, while her emasculated hubby weeps in a fetal position.

You know the scene in "The Producers," during the cast tryouts, where Zero Mostel jumps up and shouts joyfully, "That's our Hitler"? I picture Planned Parenthood Golden Gate President Dian J. "Dianysis" Harrison watching the "Sinful Wives" trailer, jumping up, and shouting joyfully, "That's our composer!"

Especially When She Drowned the Abstinence Advocate

"Today I had fun with the Puberty lady."

— Quote from "Students Comments To Our Educators" [sic], on the Web site of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (the PP chapter that brought you "A Superhero for Choice")

Two readers have left prayer requests in the comments section of the post I made on Sunday inviting such requests from people whose lives have been affected by abortion. Please read their requests and join me in praying for God to send them His comfort and His peace. Thank you.

'Animated' Discussion

Thanks very much to everyone who participated in Project Max. Although most of the media continues to ignore Planned Parenthood's violent cartoon fantasy, "A Superhero for Choice," a few outlets have picked up the story. In addition, the American Life League today renewed its call for Planned Parenthood to apologize for the cartoon.

As of yet, neither Planned Parenthood Federation of America nor its Planned Parenthood Golden Gate branch, which created the animation that shows a PP "superhero" blowing up pro-lifers, has acknowledged the outcry over it.
Meanwhile, the California ProLife Council has called upon the state's attorney general to investigate if taxpayer funds were used to make "A Superhero for Choice."

In related news:

• Diogenes of Catholic World News' Off the Record mentions "A Superhero for Choice" in a great piece that touches on the hypocrisy of hate-speech laws.
• The Washington Times' "Inside Washington" column covered the outcry.
• Michael Medved discussed "A Superhero for Choice" on his radio show. Michael Savage also picked up the topic, plus I've heard that Bill O'Reilly did so as well—can anyone confirm?
• Planned Parenthood Golden Gate still features the cartoon on the front page of its Web site, but the link on that page does not work. The organization's own link to the cartoon is still active, but only available to those in the know—like schoolchildren in PPGG's sex-ed programs, perhaps?

Faithmouse Routs Al Dianysis

Just view it (the top cartoon on the page as of today).

Sweeney Clod

Sweeney's Swine*

Further proof that Christians need to continually remind the mainstream media of the most basic facts concerning their faith: San Francisco Chronicle religion writer David Ian Miller's failure to correct Julia Sweeney as she utterly mangles a story from the Gospels.

Former (way former) "Saturday Night Live" star Sweeney makes her Bible blunder in an interview with Miller to promote her new book about how she became an atheist. She says that she began to doubt God's existence when, at 38, she attended a Bible study class at her Catholic church and learned what was really in the Good Book:

Well, the most surprising thing overall is that anyone takes it seriously at all. Even if you were, say, Margaret Mead looking at Catholic Christian culture in America and you said all these people believe this thing—every week they go and hear quotes from this book, and everything in this book is so sacred to these people—I, as the Margaret Mead character looking at this, would be stupendously shocked that it was so contradictory and so obviously the result of a historic tribe trying to make sense of an unpredictable environment with limited scientific knowledge and a need for culture and cohesion.

It isn't that there aren't wonderful parts to the Bible, but it's just shocking to me that anyone spends their time defending it as anything more than a culturally special book. In terms of really taking it seriously as the word of God, I can't.

It is surprising that anyone takes the Word of God seriously in our culture when the materialist messages we get from our media and our surroundings go against it. That makes the gift of faith all the more miraculous. However, Sweeney's main argument—that she doubts the Bible because she knows it—falls a bit flat with her next bon mot:

To me, the Iliad offers more insight into human character and lessons than the Bible. You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!

I am reminded of the line in "Beyond the Fringe," where Dudley Moore tells a priest that the Gospels are awfully cruel, what with all that talk of putting a needle through a camel's eye.

The fact that interviewer Miller just rolls right along, not even pausing to ask Sweeney if she realized she was mistaken, says volumes. Apparently, it is too much to expect a San Francisco Chronicle religion writer to have the Bible knowledge of a 7-year-old Sunday-school student.

To learn what Jesus really did that involved pigs—and, trust me, no humans were transmogrified—read Mark 5:1-20.

*Headline changed following admonishment from the Raving Atheist (see comments). Thanks to J. Michael Walker for the new headline.

Planned Parenthood's 'A Superhero for Choice' Transcript Now Available Online

Kudos to Shoutlast.com, which is now hosting the transcript of "A Superhero for Choice" (click on one of the links on that page for the format you prefer) and the video itself (choose between the MP4 file and the smaller ZIP file).

Constantine, Emperor of 'Tolerance' — So Says the AP

A few days ago, I asked readers to contact the Associated Press and other media to tell them about a cartoon made by a government-funded organization that supported violence against Christians. Today, reader Colin O'Brien e-mailed me an example of why the AP and other media sorely need enlightenment about even the most basic facts of Christianity, religious history, and world history. It's a story about a statue of the Emperor Constantine that was recently found in Rome. The AP reporter writes:

During his reign, which lasted from 306 to 337, Constantine tried to stop the fracturing of the empire and sought to restore it to its ancient glory. Although not a Christian himself, he ended the frequent waves of anti-Christian persecutions by proclaiming religious freedom throughout his lands. He also moved the empire's capital to Constantinople—today's Istanbul—closer to the Eastern borders threatened by the barbarian invasions.

Leaving aside his deathbed conversion to Christianity, even secular accounts of Constantine's reign call him the leader who made Rome a Christian empire. He wasn't some great champion of "tolerance" who merely allowed Christianity to subsist as one equally valid vegetable in the great salad bowl of accepted religious traditions.

Homeland's Mane Threat

It's a light news day in the Culture of Death, so I decided to see just how far my Web surfing could take me from Planned Parenthood's "Superhero for Choice."

Somehow—don't ask me why—I landed on the site of the Official Fabio International Fan Club.

Immediately, my eyes landed upon a line that could very possibly return to me in the middle of the night to waken me with convulsions of laughter: "YES - HIS HAIR IS BROWN NOW."

There's also an alternately poignant and delightful essay by fan club president Donnamarie E. White about her long-awaited lunch with the legend, "My Eyes Melted," in which we learn that Fabio, being a noncitizen, has to be fingerprinted by Homeland Security.

At that point, I was jarred back to Topic A. Kansas abortionists can work without fear of regulation, and we're fingerprinting Fabio?

Expect one or more new posts later this afternoon...

Ask Them if You Get to Use Their Condom Gun

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is looking for a "volunteer clinic escort."

"Persons of color, men and others of traditionally underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply."

I guess that makes them an equal opportunity destroyer.

Today's installment of my Daily News "Blog On!" column features a subject familiar to regular Dawn Patrol readers—the unsinkable Tylor Lauck.

Prayer on Maximilian Kolbe's Feast Day

Today is the 64th anniversary of the martyrdom of Maximilian Kolbe, who gave his life so that a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz might live.

Below is a prayer to St. Maximilian, to end abortion and comfort women who suffer from post-abortion trauma. It is taken from the appendix to Will to Love, a collection of Kolbe's writings published by Marytown Press, the publishing arm of the U.S. branch of Kolbe's Militia of the Immaculata. If you pray but do not do so through saints, I hope this is still helpful to you as you commune with God today:

St. Maximilian, hear this prayer of supplication that I address to you with confidence.

I honor your holy life that was guided by unshakable faith in the mystery of the Incarnation. I admire your public witness for the right to life when you offered yourself to save a fellow prisoner.

Please move the consciences of those who are contemplating abortion. Please move to repentance the women and men who have chosen abortion over the gift of life. Please intercede for the unborn children who will never grow to love God and neighbor because of abortion. Please comfort the women who suffer from post-abortion trauma and inspire them to seek spiritual and psychological help. Please sustain the courage and wisdom of those in the pro-life movement, so that they may be peaceful witnesses to the sanctity of life. Please move the hearts of our lawmakers and citizens so that the holocaust of abortion will no longer be the law of the land.

I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen

The comments section for this post is for those whose lives have been affected by abortion who would like me and other readers to pray for them on this day. Please leave as much or as little information as you wish about who you are and what you would like others to pray for you. If you would like to share how you were affected by abortion, please do. But if you do not want to leave any details or even your name, just write, "Pray for me," and be anonymous—I'll pray to God, through St. Maximilian, for whomever the person is who left the comment.

Please note: Only comments requesting prayer should be left in this post's comment section. Thank you.

For information on healing after abortion, visit Silent No More.

Writer and photographer Joe Manzari has written a succinct summation of Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice" and the outrage over it. He's submitted it to a leading opinion Web site; while they decide whether to run it, you can read it on his own site.

Planned Parenthood's 'Superhero for Choice' —In Her Own Words

Today, reader Jeff Cooper sent me a full transcript of Planned Parenthood's "A Superhero for Choice." I sent it to a Web site that's posted it in its entirety (see details at bottom of entry). Here are some, ahem, "choice" excerpts:

Dian [before she morphs into "superhero" Dianysis]: Now that’s what I’m talking about. Every day you and I are faced with about a million different opportunities to make a choice. Like I choose to eat organic vegetables, or I choose to stop at a red light, or I choose to root for the Giants and not those Bushleaguers from Los Angeles. What I’m saying is, we all need to take care of ourselves, protect ourselves, and gather our own information.
* * *
[Three youths—a black male, a Hispanic male, and an Asian female—are standing in an alley, listening to an abstinence advocate (listed in the credits as "Sleazy Dude). The abstinence advocate is short and squat, with a top hat and a purple suit.]

Abstinence advocate: So as I was saying, kids, the only way to prevent pregnancy is to practice abstinence.

Youth 1: But mister, we learned at school that there are other ways to practice safe sex and protect ourselves.

AA: Oh yeah? Like what?

Youth 2: Well...there’s lots of different contraceptive devices. You got your condoms, you got your birth control pills...

AA: Phooey! Those are instruments from the devil’s toolbox. If you’re so smart, Miss Smarty-Smart Pants, what are you going to do about STDs? You do know what STDs are, don’t ya?

Youth 2: Sure, but I don’t plan on getting a sexually transmitted disease.

AA: Nobody does...ahahahaha!

[Superhero Dianysis arrives on the scene]

Dianysis: What do you think you’re doing here?

AA: Uh, well, I’m just telling these kids the truth.

Dianysis: The only truth here is that you’re ugly, and your mama dresses you funny.

[Dianysis takes out an "Aqua Slide" squirt gun, squirting a trash can full of the substance. She tosses the abstinence advocate into it, clamps the lid on, and holds it down.]

AA: “Aaaaaah!”

[The abstinence advocate is heard muttering. His muttering gradually decreases in volume until he is quiet.]

Dianysis: It looks like it’s time to take out the trash! Now you kids know where to go for all your health care needs and reproductive advice, don’t you?

Youth 1: We sure do, ma’am. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate—

All three youths: —because we have a choice!

Dianysis: That’s good. But call me Dianysis. And here’s a little something to remember me by.

[Tosses the youths a "SAFE SEX KIT"]

Youths: Gee, thanks Dianysis.

Dianysis: Be good! I’ve gotta go. I smell trouble with a capital T! Remember: Safe is sexyyy! [Zooms into the air]

[Scene shows demonstrators outside a Planned Parenthood facility, putting special emphasis on a sign that says "PRAY FOR THY SINS." Superhero arrives on the scene.]

Dianysis: These folks here are known as anti-choice demonstrators. Under the first amendment of our constitution, they’re allowed to express their beliefs, if done so peacefully and in accordance with the laws. Yet they can sometimes become unruly, [demonstrators are shown again, this time looking like zombies, with green or blue skin, and grunting ominously] and sometimes, they get a little too close. But mostly, I wish that they would just disappear. Hey, that gives me an idea!

[Takes out a gun and shoots three condoms at the demonstrators, which envelop them inside. They then explode with fire and smoke, leaving no trace of the demonstrators behind.]

Dianysis [continued]: That’s more like it! Open for business! Now everyone that needs low-cost and confidential health care may enter freely, without intimidation or violence, and acquire information about reproductive issues, and obtain professional health services that each of us deserve, be they women, men, or teens.

The full transcript is now available on Shoutlast.com (click on one of the links on that page for the format you prefer), which is also hosting the video itself (choose between the MP4 file and the smaller ZIP file). This sort of thing could come in mighty handy with Project Max, or with any effort to notify media and legislators of how Planned Parenthood spends tax dollars on offensive, violence-promoting trash.

Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is clearly feeling the heat—it's taken the link to the cartoon off its front page, with no explanation. Curiously, the link to the cartoon itself, hosted on PPGG's server, still works. I shudder to think that the organization is keeping the cartoon on its server so that they may show it in schools. "Hey, kiddies, here's what you do with pro-lifers: Blow them up!"

Meanwhile, several bloggers have united to make sure that Planned Parenthood does not succeed in covering its tracks. They're risking a lawsuit to host the animation on their own blogs, so that people may see the true nature of Planned Parenthood. Click here for links to bloggers hosting the cartoon.

Much thanks to Jeff Cooper for his hard work in transcribing the cartoon, and to everyone taking part in Project Max.

Abortion Advocates on the Lamb

David Wharton of A Little Urbanity finds in the fashion industry a perfect example of pro-choice hypocrisy—the debate over a textile known as astrakhan:

It used to be called "Persian lamb, karakul, or in some cases broadtail," according to the NY Times. (I'm convinced that the new name is an attempt to ride the coattails of Harry Potter.)

Astrakhan is the wooly lamb skin of the karakul sheep, and, apparently, the younger the lamb, the finer the fur. Good astrakhan comes from sheep just a few days old. For the very finest fur, called "broadtail," you have to harvest the lambs before they are born. Lamb fetuses.

But for designer Carmen Marc Valvo, "That's just a little too much." So also for designer Albert Kriemler. "[He said] he would never use broadtail from a lamb fetus. The astrakhan in his designs comes from naturally born lambs..."
Other designers seemed similarly squeamish....

You may accuse me of unwarranted stereotyping if you wish, but I'm guessing that pretty much all of these designers are fully paid up members of pro-choice charities and organizations, and would probably support a woman's right to an abortion right up through the third trimester.

But they're trying to appear more humane in the fur world by saying they don't use lamb fetuses for their fur, but rather slaughter them after they're born?
Wait, wouldn't it be more humane to kill the fetuses? I'm not getting this.

Read the whole thing, and comment on Wharton's blog.

You gotta love Wharton's headline: "The Silence of the Astrakhan."

It's Time to Play 'Shame That Toon'!

The mainstream media has taken its first nibble! See update below.

Today is Day 2 of Project Max, the action plan to get stories about Planned Parenthood's vile cartoon into Sunday newspapers across the country. If you haven't yet read yesterday's introductory post about the plan, including step-by-step instructions on what you can do to get the word out, please read it now.

Thanks to the efforts of the pro-life community, the news about "A Superhero for Choice," which depicts a Planned Parenthood "superhero" gaily blowing up pro-lifers, continues to spread throughout the Web. As I write, it's currently the top Planned Parenthood story on Google News, with 15 news articles listed, and that's not even counting the syndicated CNS News story (which includes a link to the cartoon). Google also lists a total of 125 Web references to "A Superhero for Choice," nearly all from blogs or publications critical of the cartoon.

UPDATE, 1:07 p.m.: The mainstream media has taken its first nibble! Gaylon Parker, op-ed writer for the Mississippi Press (owned by Newhouse), covers the cartoon in "Trapping government waste in the 'Net.'

Radio has also picked up the story—kudos to Frank Pastore, Relevant Radio's Drew Mariani (who interviewed me yesterday), and Michael Savage.

Two issues have been coming up in the news and blog coverage of this story which are important to keep in mind as you approach your local newspaper, talk-radio show, or TV station about covering it:

• Planned Parenthood Golden Gate is trying to stifle its own animation. It removed the link to the cartoon from its Web page, with no explanation. (A link is there, but it only takes you back to the same page.)
  
  Clearly, Planned Parenthood is on the run. They know they screwed up. We have to push this issue to the point where newspapers, TV, and radio start asking them questions. Questions like, how could they use public funds to create a cartoon that glorifies hate crime (considering that 53 percent of their annual budget comes from taxpayers)?


• The other important issue that's being raised about "A Superhero for Choice" is that it comes at a time when Planned Parenthood's friends at NARAL are spending $500,000 on ads falsely depicting John Roberts as supporting an abortion-clinic bomber. It is outrageous hypocrisy for the abortion industry to falsely accuse Roberts of supporting violence, while openly advocating it themselves.

If you've been following the uproar over "A Superhero for Choice" since I first posted about it early Saturday morning, it may seem as though the story's been played out. After all, Michelle Malkin, NRO's The Corner, Spirit Daily, Christianity Today Online, and many others have already covered it. But remember this: It often takes the mainstream media weeks to catch on to a story after it's hit the blogs. It's highly unusual for mainstream news outlets to catch onto a story quickly. They just don't work that way. Most reporters and editors do not comb the Web beyond Drudge, CNN.com, and whatever pops up on their AOL launch page.

However, we can't wait weeks for the mainstream media to pick up on this story. Planned Parenthood, as mentioned, has already removed the link to the cartoon from its site (and it's only a matter of time before it takes down its now-hidden direct link to the animation as well). Most people are discovering the animation through the links provided by bloggers, who are hosting it on their own sites—at risk of a lawsuit—in a remarkable display of grassroots activism.

If "A Superhero for Choice" doesn't get into this Sunday's paper, Planned Parenthood may succeed in covering its tracks, and the story could go down in history, if at all, as just one of those wacko pro-life myths. That's why we have to take action—today.

So, please reread the five-step plan for action, contact your local newspaper, and leave a comment in the comments section of the original Project Max post to let others know which paper you contacted and whom you contacted there.

Also, it's very important to contact the Associated Press. If they pick up on the story, it will be everywhere. Here again are the people to contact there—remember to personalize your e-mail for each of them, rather than sending a group e-mail: Burl Osborne, AP Chairman, bosborne@ap.org;Tom Curley, AP President and CEO, tcurley@ap.org; and Kathleen Carroll, AP SVP/Executive Editor, kcarroll@ap.org.

If you're in California, contact the California Pro-Life Council to see how you can help their efforts to raise awareness of the cartoon. Yesterday, they issued a press release calling on Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate Planned Parenthood to see if taxpayer funds were used to make the animation, which the CPLC rightfully terms "hate speech."

Thanks very much to everyone participating in Project Max. You really can make a difference. All it takes is just one mainstream newspaper to pick up the story. Then others will follow, and Americans will learn something of the true nature of Planned Parenthood.