Marketing Abortion, and a dodo Byrd

David Kupelian, managing editor at WorldNetDaily.com, has a lengthy and masterful article on the marketing of abortion. I have posted much on this topic, as the 32nd anniversary of Roe v Wade is two days from today. If this seems like a major topic for me, I recall Francis Schaeffer's statement, "if we will not stand for life, for what will we stand?" Charles Colson in BreakPoint has an article about British Parliament considering a mental capacity bill that would allow third parties to make medical decisions on behalf of someone else. On the heels of the Groningen Protocol, this is troubling, to say the least. There are those who will protest that the intent of such initiatives is misrepresented. I don't think they get it. The point is that abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are all active killing of patients who have committed no crime and are a threat to no one. It makes no difference how advocates of such thinking may appeal to the intensity of the suffering of the patient or the dim prospects for a "future". There is a difference between prolonging death and prolonging life, and there is a difference between accepting death and causing it.



Michelle Malkin reports on Robert Byrd's blockage of the confirmation of Condoleeza Rice. I reproduce her post in its entirety.

"Democratic Sen. Robert "Sheets" Byrd, past recruitment officer for the KKK and former advocate of racial segregation, has announced that he will obstruct the confirmation of the first African-American woman to be nominated to be Secretary of State.
"And if you don't think that's exactly how CBS and the rest of the MSM would have played the story if Byrd were a Republican and Rice a Democratic nominee, I have some genuine Bush National Guard documents to sell you."

My only comment is that I have had no time for Sen. Byrd since he went on national TV a few years ago and stated frankly that then President Clinton had in fact committed impeachable offenses but that it was in the best interest of the country not to pursue the matter. Let's see, committed crime, good for country to look the other way. I guess that makes sense to relativists with an agenda. If the highest ranking official in the land is above the law, what then does law mean? It means what those in power want it to mean.

Which is why political tactics to oppose judicial nominees needs to be resisted. We need judges who will read the constitution and not rewrite it.