Friday, June 24, 2011


This week in New Hampshire there was a major victory for the parents of that state.  The legislature passed a law requiring parental notice 48 hours before minors can receive abortions.  Governor John Lynch, ever the good democrat, vetoed the measure.  Belief in this bill was strong though, and the legislature overrode the veto - 266-102 in the House and 17-7 in the Senate.  In ultra-blue New Hampshire.  To borrow a phrase, unflippingbelievable!

This is a major victory for parents in the Granite State.  In 2003, there was a parental notification law on the books, but it went unenforced and was eventually repealed four years ago mainly because there was no judicial option.  The key to the current law is that girls can go before a judge sans parents and get permission in certain cases - but even this is an unacceptable option for Planned Parenthood (via PPNNE Action Fund):

Under HB 329, a young woman who cannot tell a parent about her unintended pregnancy would be forced to stand in court and explain her circumstances to a judge. This intimidating court process could delay medical care and put young women’s health at risk.

What do you think the odds are that there will be an up-tick in girls who "fear violence or retaliation at home" and are seeking judicial waivers for parent-free abortions?  On a side note, from the looks of that article in PPNNE, someone should look out for a little extra something in his reelection fund for his valiant effort...

Yet again, Planned Parenthood is hiding behind the guise of "women's health" and how it's "at risk" with these proposed regulations.  For all the talk about women's health being "at risk" from anti-abortion policies, they certainly shy away from giving those same women the real facts about the health risks of abortions (check out the differences between the two links in the 'risk'category).  The fact is, an abortion is a surgical procedure, with all of the potential risks of any other outpatient procedure, including infection and hemorrhaging.  Both of those are potentially lethal.  If my child can't get an aspirin from the school nurse for a headache without my say-so because of state guidelines, why in hell can she have a surgical procedure without my written consent? 

As for the argument that there are girls who "fear violence and retaliation in the home", those girls might very well be victims of rape or abuse at home; perhaps making them wards of the court for the purpose of abortion might be the first step in calling attention to and addressing abuses at home.  Those girls don't know where to go or who to turn to.  Enabling secret abortions may only perpetuate their misery.  The Lila Rose project illustrates how concerned PP is for underaged girls being impregnated by 30-something men.  Just keep your mouth shut and get your abortion, honey.  We don't want to know.

Well as a parent I, for one, do want to know.  It is my right as a parent, until that child turns eighteen, to know of and approve of every surgical procedure, prescription drug and doctor appointment my child requires. 

Let me see if I've got this straight.  According to democrats, my under-aged child should have sole responsiblity for making adult decisions including which surgical procedures she should undergo, but when it comes to things like, oh, insurance, mommy and daddy are the go-to people until junior hits adulthood at the tender young age of twenty-six. 



Sunday, June 5, 2011


Sarah Palin has the liberals twittering away again, much like after her "party like it's 1773" comment last year that had them in stitches - until they realized she was right.

This time, Palin made a few remarks on Paul Revere's midnight ride.  In her remarks, she mentions the tolling of bells, beating of drums and Revere warning the British that the Americans are coming.  Wait, what? our intrepid media wondered.  Warning the British the Americans are coming?  What a buffoon! 

The press chuckled at this latest illustration of their narrative that she is a blathering idiot.  They crowed gleefully about the hypocrisy of this woman on a bus tour to educate people about America not knowing the basic facts about something as well known as Revere's ride.  They even mocked her reference to the ringing of bells and beating of drums in the wake of Revere's alarm.

The thing is, she's right.  It seems Mr. Revere personally wrote an accounting (spelling original, emphasis mine) of his famous ride (via Massachussetts Historical Society):

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Hmmm.  Sounds like a warning to me.  And how did the militias, once alerted by Revere, warn the countryside and call their members to arms?  Why, by ringing church bells, beating drums, and firing shots in the air of course.  How else would it be done in 1775?  Twittering a flash mob?  Phone tree?

Yet again they underestimate her and make the mistake of buying their own false narrative.  Yet again they have egg on their faces.

Talk about summer fun!


  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP