Abortion
Is
Murder

Now, in May 2019 politicians are working to protect the unborn child. The Governor of Alabama, a woman signed a Bill into law which makes abortion into a crime for medics, with potential 99 year sentence. It makes no exception for the victims of Rape or incest, which is a pity. See Alabama governor signs bill authorizing near total ban on abortions. The Mail is not censoring comments, a slight surprise. They are largely hostile. One sensible comment from Molly59, Sydney, Australia told us:-
QUOTE
I have worked in a health career for over 30 years also involving a lot of ad hoc counselling including females who find themselves in this sad situation. At a grass roots level I hear all the stories about how it happened and why they are thinking about having an abortion. And I can inform readers that at least here in Sydney, by far and away it's because the father has dumped them or has demanded an abortion and does not want anything to do with the baby (often because they don't want to pay for it's upkeep or be "trapped" by a child, so not only has she got a terrible decision to make but also found out what the man she was in love with was really like). Very few women seek abortion because they are using it as after the fact contraception because they don't care. So, in my considered opinion, a lot less women would seek abortion if men weren't such irresponsible, selfish, feckless cowards avoiding fatherhood and its costs. I can draw no other conclusion after all these years.
UNQUOTE
Believe her? I do. What colour are these deadbeat dads? In Alabama, would you even ask?

An anti-abortion activist called David Daleiden runs the Center for Medical Progress. They set up a sting, which produced results. It seems their editing was fraudulent, that the abortionists were not selling infant body parts for profit. Alternatively the Wiki is lying.
UPDATE:
David Cole, an author, political commentator & Jew told us in 2022 that abortion is a very effective vote loser for Republicans & Christianity. See  Midterm for the Worse, Part I: Fetus Do Yo’ Stuff!

Kermit Gosnell ex Wiki    
Kermit Barron Gosnell (born February 9, 1941) is an American former physician^[2] and abortionist who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures and one woman through a botched abortion.^{[3][4][5][6][7]}

Gosnell owned and operated the Women's Medical Society clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and he was a prolific prescriber of OxyContin. Then In 2011, Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania's 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. The murder charges related to an adult patient, Karnamaya Mongar, who died following an abortion procedure, and seven newborns said to have been killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. In May 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of three of the infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar. Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion, and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal in exchange for an agreement not to seek the death penalty. He was sentenced instead to life in prison without the possibility of parole.^[9][10]

 

Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer ex Wiki  
Ann McElhinney (born 1964) and Phelim McAleer (born 1967) are Irish documentary filmmakers and New York Times best-selling authors. They have written and produced the political documentaries FrackNation, Not Evil Just Wrong, and Mine Your Own Business, as well as The Search for Tristan's Mum and Return to Sender. Their latest project, Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer, is a true crime drama film based on the crimes of Kermit Gosnell.^[1] Their book, Gosnell: - The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer, was an Amazon and New York Times best seller.^[2] They are married [ to each other it seems - Ed. ].

 

Gosnell ex Steyn Online       
QUOTE
On the day that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as a judge on the highest court in the land, this new film is as appropriate a choice as any for our Saturday movie date: it was America's abortion absolutism that drove both the fanatical opposition to Justice Kavanaugh's nomination and the media blackout on the case of Dr Kermit Gosnell, and their opposition to anyone telling his story. Gosnell opens in movie theaters this coming Friday, but a few days ago The Mark Steyn Club Cruise hosted a special screening with filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer as we sailed through the Gulf of St Lawrence. The audience was profoundly moved. Katie, one of our Pennsylvania Club members, described it over at Ricochet as "shattering", which it is. One lady, having worked in a very famous West Coast medical facility, said that Dr Kermit Gosnell's preferred method of "abortion" - live births - was common there too, and that we were all "complicit". Another viewer focused on his own profession of anesthetist, and teared up as he recalled the untrained fifteen-year-old who functioned as Gosnell's and used a handmade color-coded chart to remember what to give whom. In fact, unlike the older women with whom she worked, the teenager had at least some semblance of sympathy for the patients, a rare sighting of human feeling in a building from which it had otherwise fled.

Dr Gosnell is almost certainly America's all-time champion serial killer. Some of us wrote about that way back when:

This is a remarkable moment in American life: A man is killing actual living, gurgling, bouncing babies on an industrial scale - and it barely makes the papers.

And, just as he couldn't make the papers, there was little chance of this particular mass murderer ever making the silver screen - until, as I put it on The Mark Steyn Show, "a couple of Irish chancers" decided to crowdfund a movie on the subject. If making the film was hard, breaking through the societal omertà is harder: The Hyatt in Austin, for example, just canceled a screening at the behest of Planned Parenthood. So do be alert both to bookings of Gosnell at your local multiplex and to attempts to get it bounced. As producers and (with Andrew Klavan) screenwriters, Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer set out to tell a story none of the big studios would touch, and their doggedness deserves to find an audience.

In the course of bringing one Philadelphia "doctor" to trial, almost every person in a position of authority in Pennsylvania cautioned that this case "is not about abortion". And thus the tale as told by the writers and director Nick Searcy: it starts out as a story not about abortion, but about illegal drugs, and a multi-agency federal/state investigation that leads to a particular inner-city clinic. When they enter, they find a garbage-strewn dump where cats wander in and out of operating rooms defecating freely, where "medical waste" is piled up wherever space can be found, and where the kitchen fridge is filled with dozens of jars containing tiny baby feet preserved as if they were pickled eggs. The doctor arrives with food for his pet turtles, who are treated better than any of the women. "This is normal?" asks Detective Stark (Alonzo Rachel). "I dunno," says his partner (Dean Cain). "I've never been in an abortion clinic before."

Their curiosity is resented by the bigshot feds from the DEA and the FBI, who don't want abortion getting in the way of their routine drugs bust. Likewise, the Department of Health has sent along a hatchet-faced nurse to ensure that the raid does not in any way impede the "procedures" being performed at the clinic: No one wants this case to be "about" abortion - not the District Attorney, concerned about the politics of being seen to oppose "reproductive rights"; not the Assistant DA's own obstetrician or the doctor next door, both of whom refuse to testify; and certainly not the lady judge, who's more concerned about the welfare of Gosnell's turtles than of his patients.

Wandering genially through the squalor and degradation is the abortionist himself. Earl Billings is the spitting image of Kermit Gosnell and plays him as an affable black man with a beatific smile and a soft-spoken manner that never rises to any epithet stronger than "Oh, my!" It is a remarkable performance of a man of many contradictions, not least in the strange mix of refined esthetic sensibility and total indifference to minimum hygiene standards: in one memorable scene, he plays Chopin on the parlor piano as millions of fleas swarm up the legs of the cops in the basement below.

For a man who delivers babies and then cuts their spines to kill them, he proves a surprisingly wily adversary for the Assistant District Attorney. Sarah Jane Morris appears to have been cast at least in part as the very acme of contemporary womanhood: Beautiful, strong, vulnerable; lawyer, jogger, mom of five and firmly pro-choice. She takes the not-about-abortion line seriously, and calls a respected, law-abiding abortion provider to testify to how far out of the abortion mainstream Dr Gosnell is. The doctor is played by Janine Turner as a paragon of gentility - earrings, pearls, tailored business suit; safe and clean and reassuring, the very opposite of Gosnell's cat feces and baby feet in the fridge. She is a sympathetic and compelling witness until defense counsel (played by the film's director Nick Searcy) rises to ask his first question: How many abortions has she performed?

She answers: "About 30,000."

Phelim McAleer told our Steyn Club cruisers that that was one of the few lines he changed from the court transcripts. She actually replied 40,000, but he reduced it to make it seem less implausible. How many of us in the course of our lives do 30,000 of anything? That's a shag a day for 82 years; that's eight performances a week of Les Misérables for 72 years. But this nice, respectable doctor has aborted three babies a day for thirty years: safe, legal and ...not so rare. It is a lawyer's job to represent his client's interests as best he can, and so, illustrating his questions with forceps and sonograms, the defense attorney sets about demonstrating that what Gosnell does is not so very different from what this calm professional sympathetic lady doctor does. This is the moment when the story becomes "about" abortion - because the lawyer's most effective defense of his client requires a demolition of the "moderate" case for abortion.

When I saw the movie the first time, I confess there were moments where I found the symbolism too neat, too pat: The baby feet in jars in Gosnell's fridge, for example, dissolve to the feet of the Assistant DA's newborn babe being cuddled and caressed by his loving mom. The second time I watched the film, however, I found the scene moving in its clarity - and I remembered an old widder woman among my neighbors who liked to tickle the feet of my own young 'un and coo, "So precious!" Why are some babies "so precious" and others just "medical waste"? Very few films make the obvious contrast Gosnell does, because they understand that avoiding that comparison is part of the way society learns to live with a great moral evil. The filmmakers do not belabor the point: Indeed, the strength of Gosnell is that it is a true-crime drama, a police procedural, a courtroom cliffhanger and all kinds of other things rather than a piece of anti-abortion propaganda. They took the decision not to show any of the more graphic evidence of Gosnell's bloody work, so that the case against him and his black art is made at its coolest and, so to speak, most antiseptic. That was a shrewd decision: Gosnell is well filmed, well told, well acted, and both powerful and entertaining. But it also has a rare integrity that should be rewarded at the box office. If you don't see it on the forthcoming attractions, call your local theater and ask them to book it. You can't win a Culture War if your side decides to sit it out.
UNQUOTE
Mark Steyn interviews Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer , who made the film.

 

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer ex Wiki     
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer is a 2018 American drama film about Kermit Gosnell, an abortion doctor who killed hundreds of infants born alive during abortion procedures. In May 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of three of the infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar. Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion, and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal in exchange for an agreement not to seek the death penalty. He was sentenced instead to life in prison without the possibility of parole.^[2][3]

The film was announced in 2014. Funds for its production were raised via crowdfunding, in which $2.3 million was raised for the creation of the film.^[4][5][6] The film was made by Irish filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer and directed by Nick Searcy. Andrew Klavan was the screenwriter.^[7] It stars Earl Billings and Dean Cain. After difficulties finding a distributor willing to carry the film and a lawsuit by a judge who objected to his portrayal in the film,^[8] the producers announced on June 26, 2018 that they signed a distribution deal with GVN Releasing for the movie to open in as many as 750 theatres, which was released on October 12, 2018.^[9]

The Catholic Thing reviewed the Gosnell film, see These Vulnerable Creatures    
It is a low key look at deep evil.

 

Controversial ‘Ferguson’ Drama Hopes For New York Opening After L.A. Deadline  [ 13 September 2017 ]
QUOTE
EXCLUSIVE: Ferguson, a play comprising Grand Jury testimony in the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Brown, will have its New York premiere in a limited run beginning October 19 at the 30th Street Theater, a small off-off-Broadway venue. If, that is, the presenting company can raise the money to hire a cast and creative team.

The play, by Phelim McAleer, a conservative-leaning journalist and filmmaker (FrackNation) and staged in Los Angeles by Nick DeGruccio (the New York production is to be directed by Jerry Dixon), prompted an actors’ walkout when it began rehearsals in Los Angeles two years ago. Cast members and others who read the script felt uncomfortable in what they described as a play overly sympathetic to the police officer, who was not charged with criminal wrongdoing.

The proposed run, presented by Theatre Verite Collective, will officially open October 23 and end November 5. The company has not yet announced a cast or creative team.

Ferguson recreates the evidence and examines what happened on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. The play is a staged version of the testimony as it was heard it in the courtroom with, according to McAleer, “no spin. No media filter. No fake news. Just the testimony presented during the hearing to the jury.” The conclusion prompted demonstrations, some violent, around the country.

During rehearsals for a staged reading in L.A. in 2015, nine members of the cast walked out, complaining about the script even though it was based on unchanged eyewitness testimony of those who actually saw the shooting of Michael Brown. Despite the cast walkouts and controversy, it was well-received by critics. The shooting was one of the most explosive in recent years and led to the founding of the Black Lives Matter movement after claims that Brown was shot in cold blood surrendering with his hands up pleading not to be shot.

“When we did the workshop in 2015, we had a lot of people trying to shut us down,” the playwright told Deadline, “even though we use actual testimony, this is an anti-establishment play, which is why we are looking to crowdfunding to get this show up and heard.” McAleer and his wife and producing partner Ann McElhinney have successfully used crowdsourcing sites, including Kickstarter and Indiegogo, to finance several large-scale projects, including FrackNation, which was a response to Josh Fox’s anti-fracking film Gasland 2.  
UNQUOTE
The truth about Ferguson? Forget it! That is not what the Mainstream are about. They are Propaganda machines inciting Black Hate. They lie deliberately, maliciously & with malice aforethought.

 

Safe, Legal and Very Common - The Abortion Epidemic . (Originally published in 2007) by Peter Hitchens
QUOTE
Hardly anyone says or thinks that abortion is a good thing in itself. Even its supporters accept that this is a nasty procedure. Hillary Clinton, for instance, has frequently declared that it should be "safe, legal - and ...(pause for effect) rare".

But that is the problem. If it is safe and legal, it is likely to become more common.  And so it has, with the figures in Britain creeping ever closer to the 200,000 a year mark despite (or in my view because of) sex education, readily-available contraceptives and the increasing ease of obtaining the morning-after pill.  One of the problems of this argument is that there is no reliable information about the true state of affairs before abortion was legalised in Britain 40 years ago. Whose word would you trust on this matter? Pro-abortion propagandists talk of tens of thousands of bloody back-street abortions, and in the 1960s estimated these at anywhere up to 250,000 a year. How did they know?
UNQUOTE
Mr Hitchen writes sympathetically and honestly about a nasty problem.

 

Abortion ex Wiki     
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy due to removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.^{[note 1]} An abortion that occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently as an "induced miscarriage". The word abortion is often used to mean only induced abortions.^[1] A similar procedure after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb is known as a "late termination of pregnancy" or less accurately as a "late term abortion".^[2]

When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.^[3][4] Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.^[5] The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandin appears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy.^[5][6] The most common surgical technique involves dilating the cervix and using a suction device.^[7] Birth control, such as the pill or intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion.^[6] When performed legally and safely, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.^[8] In contrast, unsafe abortions (those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities) cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year.^[8][9] The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.^[10]

Around 56 million abortions are performed each year in the world,^[11] with about 45% done unsafely.^[12] Abortion rates changed little between 2003 and 2008,^[13] before which they decreased for at least two decades as access to family planning and birth control increased.^[14] As of 2008, 40% of the world's women had access to legal abortions without limits as to reason.^[15] Countries that permit abortions have different limits on how late in pregnancy abortion is allowed.^[15]

Historically, abortions have been attempted using herbal medicines, sharp tools, forceful massage, or through other traditional methods.^[16] Abortion laws and cultural or religious views of abortions are different around the world. In some areas abortion is legal only in specific cases such as rape, problems with the fetus, poverty, risk to a woman's health, or incest.^[17] In many places there is much debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion.^[18][19] Those who oppose abortion often maintain that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life, and so they may compare abortion to murder.^[20][21] Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.^[22] Others favor legal and accessible abortion as a public health measure.^[23]

 

Infanticide ex Wiki          
Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.

Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are far more likely than fathers to be the perpetrators of neonaticide^[1] and slightly more likely to commit infanticide in general.^[2]

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."^[3]:61

In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible.

 

Hearts and Minds ex Wiki        
Hearts and Minds (Vietnam) or winning hearts and minds refers to the strategy and programs used by the governments of South Vietnam and the United States during the Vietnam War to win the popular support of the Vietnamese people and to help defeat the Viet Cong insurgency. Pacification is the more formal term for winning hearts and minds. Military, political, economic, and social means were used to attempt to establish or reestablish South Vietnamese government control over rural areas and people under the influence of the Viet Cong. Some progress was made in the 1967–1971 period by the joint military-civilian organization called CORDS, but the character of the war changed from an insurgency to a conventional war between the armies of South and North Vietnam. North Vietnam won in 1975.

Pacification or hearts and minds objectives were often in diametric opposition to the strategy of firepower, mobility, and attrition pursued by the U.S. from 1965 to 1968. Rather than the search and destroy strategy the U.S. followed during those years, hearts and minds had the priority of "hold and protect" the rural population and thereby gain its support for the government of South Vietnam.

 

Hippocratic Oath ex Wiki      
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The Oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today. These include the principles of medical confidentiality and non-maleficence. As the seminal articulation of certain principles that continue to guide and inform medical practice, the ancient text is of more than historic and symbolic value. Swearing a modified form of the Oath remains a rite of passage for medical graduates in many countries.

Hippocrates is often called the father of medicine in Western culture.^[1] The original oath was written in Ionic Greek, between the fifth and third centuries BC.^[2] It is usually included in the Hippocratic Corpus.

 

Roe Versus Wade
This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, getting there in 1973. The Supremes decided to claim that the American Constitution granted the right to abortion. This invalidates States laws in various places. It was a victory for Hard Left manipulators & part of the Culture Wars being waged against Western Civilization. Now, in 2022 the Court, with different Judges went the other way. They also told the truth. Whoops. That went down very badly with the Left Wing, with the Lunatic Fringe.

 

Roe versus Wade ex Wiki            
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),^[1] is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.^[2] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),^[3] the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.^[4] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."^[5] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.^[6]

In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,^[7][8] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.

Roe received significant criticism in the legal community,^[9] with the decision being widely seen as an extreme form of judicial activism.^[10] In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,^[9][10] the American legal scholar John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."^[11] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."^[12]