Pregnant Abortionist Feels Her Baby Kick As She Tears Off Leg in an Abortion

Article by Sarah Terzo

Abortionist Lisa Harris speaks about performing an abortion while she was pregnant, and feeling her own baby Just as she was pulling the leg off of the baby she was aborting. Sadly, this did not make her stop doing abortions.

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant.

As I reviewed her chart I realized that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation.

I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier.

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg.

Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement.

There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain – even being aware of what was going on.

I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts.

It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life.

Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

Lisa H Harris “Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the Silence and Changing the Discourse” Reproductive Health Matters 2008

Tina Brown took aim at President Barack Obama

Politico

Obama’s Standing with women hurts senate dems by Manu Raju

"…with two weeks until election day, the president’s diminished standing with women is quickly becoming one of the biggest liavilities facing democrats as they struggle to hang onto the senate majority.  In battleground states across the country, Obama is underwater with female voters – expecially women unaffiliated with a political party – and it’s making it harder for democrats to take advantage of the gender gap, according to public polling and democratic strategists."

On Monday’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, author and Daily Beast founder Tina Brown took aim at President Barack Obama and his handling of the several crises facing the country with regards to how women voters view perceive his responses.

Brown explained that Obama’s persona has done little to reassure that key voting bloc.

“They’ve got themselves a little better disciplined. But, you know, the fact is that Obama’s down with everybody, let's face it, there’s a reason,” Brown said. “And I think that particularly for women. I don't think it makes them feel safe. I think they're feeling unsafe. Economically, they’re feeling unsafe. With regard to ISIS, they’re feeling unsafe. They feel unsafe about Ebola. What they’re feeling unsafe about is the government response to different crises. And I think they're beginning to feel a bit that Obama’s like that guy in the corner office, you know, who's too cool for school, calls a meeting, says this has to change, doesn't put anything in place to make sure it does change, then it goes wrong and he's blaming everybody. So there’s a slight sense of that.”

Brown also attack the GOP, saying that while Obama has been underwhelming in some regards, Republicans have done nothing to pick up the slack in her view.

“But at the same time, we ought to think about what Republicans are doing for women, which is very little, you know,” Brown added. “I mean, they were against … they blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act --the fourth time since 2012. You know, they are really just not helping women at all. This gap in the economy is terrible. The fact that women are losing their jobs even more than men because of this whole kind of part-time issue and the economy's terrible. So, you know, it's not good.”

(the part-time issue is the fault of Obamacare!  And the economy has been stagnate because of Obama's policies!) 

It's time to boycott college

Excerpts from article by Matt Walsh

Aristotle said that education should be designed to make us virtuous. It seems that modern higher education is specifically aimed at doing the opposite, which often makes college worse than pointless.

Please understand this: college will not become cheaper, employers will not stop erecting irrelevant barriers to entry, schools will not stop pushing kids in one direction regardless of their unique skills and abilities, and nothing else will get better with any of this until we stop participating in the charade.

We are truly a society of impotent and hopeless sheep if we continue to bankrupt ourselves and our children on a massively overpriced college education just because “it’s what people do.”

It’s only what people do because people do it.  Stop Doing it!

Boycott college. Free yourselves. Free your children. Make your own life. Teach your kids to live differently, uniquely, individually. College is not necessary for most of us. I think it’s time we stop pretending otherwise. Now go forth and spread the word. Godspeed.

Read more at http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/my-fellow-americans-its-time-to-boycott-college/

Bobby Jindal hits Hillary Clinton on Ebola funding

By David Sherfinski - The Washington Times - Monday, October 13, 2014

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is hitting back over remarks former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made last week suggesting that federal spending cuts have hurt the fight against the Ebola virus.

Mrs. Clinton referred to across-the-board sequester cuts enacted by Congress as a “handicap” on regulators, adding: “The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] is another example on the response to Ebola — they’re working heroically, but they don’t have the resources they used to have.”

Mr. Jindal disagreed, saying that funding has been there but that much of it has gone toward purposes other than fighting infectious diseases.

He points to the CDC’s receiving slightly less than $3 billion over the last five years in transfers from the Prevention and Public Health Fund under Obamacare, but devoting approximately $180 million of that money toward building epidemiology and laboratory capacity.

“Especially given the agency’s postwar roots as the Communicable Disease Center, one would think that ‘detecting and responding to infectious diseases and other public health threats’ warrants a larger funding commitment,” he wrote in a piece for Politico.

The possible 2016 GOP presidential contender points out a community grant program that funds efforts like supporting local farmers and neighborhood grocery stores, as well as improvements to sidewalks and street lighting for walkers and bikers, has received more than $500 million over the same time period.

Bike lanes and farmer’s markets may indeed help a community — but they would do little to combat dangerous diseases like Ebola, SARS or anthrax,” he wrote.

He said such community efforts are worthwhile, but that “when … government prioritizes funding for jungle gyms and bike paths over steps to protect our nation from possible pandemics, citizens have every right to question the decisions that got us to this point.”

“In her speech, Secretary Clinton said, ‘too often our health care debates are clouded by ideology, rather than illuminated by data,’ ” Mr. Jindal wrote. “I couldn’t agree more. But in this case, the data show not that the CDC faced a lack of funding, but misplaced priorities for that funding based on choices made by the Obama administration. I urge Secretary Clinton to put her partisan politics aside, and ensure instead that the federal government focus first and foremost on our most important goal: to keep America, and Americans, safe.”

LDS Church statement after Supreme Court decision

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court decision to not hear same-sex marriage appeals from Utah and four other states.

"The succession of federal court decisions in recent months, culminating in todays announcement by the Supreme Court, will have no effect on the doctrinal position or practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is that only marriage between a man and a woman is acceptable to God. In prizing freedom of conscience and Constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religion, we will continue to teach that standard and uphold it in our religious practices.

Nevertheless, respectful coexistence is possible with those with differing values. As far as the civil law is concerned, the courts have spoken. Church leaders will continue to encourage our people to be persons of good will toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or non-belief, and differences in sexual orientation."

Faith in America painting

by Billy Hallowell
A painting on display in an Oklahoma middle school’s main office has caught the ire of atheist activists who are demanding that officials immediately remove it.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group, sent a letter to district officials on August 25 complaining over the image, which features children praying in front of an American flag.
The poster, based on a painting titled “Faith in America” by artist Donald Zolan, has been hanging in Kenneth Cooper Middle School in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for nearly two decades. But the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims it violates the U.S. Constitution.
The district, though, doesn’t appear to be budging.

An attorney for the Putnam City Public School District responded to the atheist group September 29, noting that the complaint — reportedly based on a local family’s dissatisfaction with the poster — is the first ever the district has received in its 18 years of displaying the image.
“We cannot agree that the poster displayed in the office is a per se violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution,” wrote attorney Anthony Childers. ”Though, as you’ve pointed out, the title given to the artwork by the original artist is labeled ‘Faith in America,’ there is no text displayed with the poster which imputes the artist’s intent, theme, or title.”
Childers noted that the children’s stance in the poster is general and not sectarian and that it does not appear to be urging students toward any singular religious view or act.
Not only did the lawyer disagree with the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s stance, but the response notes that officials won’t be complying with its demand for removal.
“At this time, we do not believe that the image violates the Establishment Clause and the District will not agree to remove the image from its office,” Childers concluded.
Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Andrew Seidel was less than content with this response, picking the district’s stance apart in a response delivered to Childers via email on October 3.
“This is posted in the office, where students are often required to go on school matters. They are forced into regular contact with the painting by the government,” Seidel wrote. “And in any school context coercion is virtually assumed.”

The letter concluded with the Freedom From Religion Foundation again demanding that the district remove the image to fall in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

Voter Opposition to Obama

By Paul Bedard |
Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no vote” percentage in the last 16 years measured by Gallup.
The polling outfit found that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who are sending a signal of support.
That is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Clinton was headed to impeachment for lying about his sex affair with a former White House intern and even a smidge higher — 2 points — than in 2008, when Americans were tired of President Bush’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unusual question was first asked by Gallup in 1998. It reads: “Will your vote for a candidate be made in order to send a message that you SUPPORT [Barack Obama], be made in order to send a message that you OPPOSE [Barack Obama], or will you NOT be sending a message about [Barack Obama] with your vote?”
Not surprisingly, Republicans want to use their vote as a megaphone of opposition. Said Gallup:

“A majority of Republican registered voters, 58 percent, say they will be sending a message of opposition to Obama with their vote this fall. In contrast, 38 percent of Democratic voters say they will support the president. Rather than supporting Obama, most Democrats, 53 percent, say they will not be sending a message with their vote.

“Democrats are a bit less likely now (38 percent) than in 2010 (45 percent) to say they will be sending a message of support to Obama, while Republican opposition to the president is the same.”