Oh no! Canuck doctor worries that Trig’s birth may result in fewer abortions!

How abso-freaking-lutely awful would that be if fewer babies were slaughtered?  From the LAT blog:

Sarah and Todd Palin’s decision to complete her recent pregnancy, despite advance notice that their baby Trig had Down syndrome, is hailed by many in the pro-life movement as walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

But a senior Canadian doctor is now expressing concerns that such a prominent public role model as the governor of Alaska and potential vice president of the United States completing a Down syndrome pregnancy may prompt other women to make the same decision against abortion because of that genetic abnormality. And thereby reduce the number of abortions. …

But hey, go ahead and tell yourselves that all liberals really want is “safe, but rare” abortions…your lying eyes be damned.

UPDATE: SC Dem: Palin qualified only because she didn’t kill her babies

UPDATES BELOW.

When the Fowlers aren’t cracking jokes about God smiting New Orleans with a Cat 4 hurricane just to mess up the GOP convention, they like to spend their time generating pearls of wisdom like this:

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate “whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” 

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said. 

Told of McCain’s boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: “Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway.”  (Whatever you say, Toots. – Ed.)

She’s half right, folks.  Had Governor Palin committed any acts of infanticide like our boy Obama defends, she would have apparently been fully qualified to run for VP on the Democrat ticket.

UPDATE (09/11/2008 – 06:00 AM EST):  Of course…it was a “botched joke“!

Biden: Republicans don’t care about special needs kids

Presumably, the “Sweetie” running on the other side of the ticket doesn’t love or care for her Down’s syndrome child.  This is sleazy for even Greasy Joe’s standards:

Was Joe Biden referring to Sarah Palin, a mother of a child with Down syndrome, when he made this comment?

“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?”

Biden received a thunderous ovation when he made the remark at a town hall style meeting this morning in Columbia.

Good to see that Greasy Joe is listening to his #1’s suggestion that “kids are off limits” in the campaign.

I’m thinking that Sen. Infanticide doesn’t really want this “who cares about babies?” / “embryonic stem cell research” issue coming up right about now.  If the cretin who opposed the Infants Born Alive Protection bill (for those of you on the left, that was Sen. Obabykiller) was content to let a Down’s syndrome baby die a slow death in a soiled utility closet, it’s safe to say he would have no qualms about killing such a baby in order to harvest his/her stem cells.  Only in Liberal La-la-land does killing a baby to use its stem cells equate to caring for children.

Team McCain-Palin responds:

Barack Obama’s running mate sunk to a new low today launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special needs children. Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign.

For the love of God, McCain, run with this sound bite…and run with it far and wide!

Exit question: Can Biden save himself by “confessing” that he’s a serial plagiarist and therefore stole the sickeningly offensive line from someone else?

Biden: Life begins at conception, but so what?

Greasy Joe over the weekend:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.
…
In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

Um…as a Catholic, you can’t be “prepared to accept”, idiot.  You must accept!

If he genuinely believes that life begins at conception, but he supports easy access to abortion, then how can anyone come to any conclusion other than Biden doesn’t care about human life?  If he actually believes what he says, then he, by his definition (and not mine), supports murder…period, end of discussion.

So, the exit question is this: Is he lying, or is he a depraved sicko…or both?

Christian AND pro-choice?

Last week, San Fran Nan opined that the Catholic church didn’t quite understand abortion properly.  She attempted to set the church straight, but as her colleagues demonstrated, she is either woefully uninformed or lying through her teeth.

This begs the question: can a person be a born-again Christian and pro-choice?  Well, quite simply…no!

Hey, I understand the reality that abortion is legal, and it likely will be legal for quite some time.  To the best of my knowledge, the only way to make the practice illegal is either by (a) passing a constitutional amendment banning abortion (highly unlikely, given the supermajorities needed for that); or (b) passing a law banning it, having the law declared unconstitutional, and getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade on appeal (highly improbable, but probably slightly more doable than the former option).  In other words, abortion is going to be legal for the foreseeable future.

Having said that, you cannot be a born-again Christian and be pro-choice.  A politician that claims to be both is a false prophet and bears “rotten fruit” (spiritually speaking).  Just because the world says it’s OK doesn’t mean that God does.  The Nuremberg defense won’t work on Judgment Day.

If you’re not a Christian, then this fact shouldn’t bother you.  And if you’re a true born-again Christian…then this fact shouldn’t bother you, either.

Washington comPost finally reporting on Obama’s infanticide record

Details here.

In related news, Hell freezes over.

Obama’s “pay grade”

Ed Morrissey does a great job dissecting the Obamessiah’s “above my pay grade” skirting of the abortion question at Saddleback:

It seems the higher Barack Obama climbs in politics, the lower his pay grade gets. Don Surber finds a quote from 2001, when Obama served in the Illinois Senate, that indicates that his pay grade covered the kind of determination that Obama now says exceeds his authority. Obama told Rick Warren that he couldn’t comment on the moment personhood gets established:

Q. Now, let’s deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. you know, as a pastor I have to deal with this all of the time. All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But in 2001, Obama must have had more authority to opine on this same question:

“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

Obama made this argument to oppose the Illinois bill that would have forced Christ Hospital and other medical providers to give life-supporting treatment to any infant born alive, regardless of whether the birth occurred during an abortion or not. Essentially, Obama argues that only those infants carried to term achieve personhood through birth, not those he deems “pre-viable” but which were born alive anyway. …

Kerry’s got nothing on this guy.

Obama: OK, I lied about my infanticide vote

While we out in normal America use the word “lie”, The Chosen One prefers “misstated”!  From Jill Stanek:

From the New York Sun, dated August 18:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

Less than 24 hours prior, Obama told CBN’s David Brody that people were lying about his vote. The Obamaliar was right about that…but the person lying about his vote was himself! The money quote:

So for people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.

In other words, the defender of infanticide admits that what he did “defies common sense” and “defies imagination”! What a hideous, shameless, disgusting, and heinous waste of oxygen this man is!

Exit invitation: Next time you hear some moonbat pop off at the piehole about how Bu$hitler McCheneyburton is a “baby killer”, let them know that their messiah is a true baby killer!

Obama supports infanticide, revisited

This is a follow-up to an earlier piece I did.  Read this, and I challenge even the most ga-ga of the Obamessiah’s Kool-Aid drinkers to try to defend the indefensible.  Excerpt:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.
…
On June 29, 2001, Boxer had spoken in favor of that same bill, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, on the floor of the U.S. Senate: “Of course, we believe everyone born should deserve the protections of this bill,” she said. “Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that.…We join with an ‘aye’ vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.” It was unanimous: 98–0. Even Hillary Clinton voted for it.

At the time Boxer spoke enthusiastically in favor of protecting premature babies, she had a 100-percent lifetime voting score from NARAL and a 100 percent score from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She was also a leader on the abortion issue. She was the greatest ally that abortion-choice advocates had in the United States Senate. …

How depraved must you be to support an abortion procedure that even Babs Boxer and the Hilldawg won’t support?

It’s so clear that even a leftist can’t avoid it: The One is so beholden to the pro-abortion lobby that he supports a grotesque form of death that even NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW do not support.  In short, he is pro-infanticide…pure and simple.  If McCain has a hair left on that shriveled scrotum of his, he will pound this into the minds of the electorate to show how The One’s judgment is even worse than we already thought.

ABC: Dems becoming more “pro-life”

Shamefully ludicrous headline:

Are Democrats Now Pro-Life?

As Convention Draws Near, New Talk of a Pro-Life Presence

Um, not quite.  See, when your party’s standard bearer supports actual, indisputable infanticide, and when your Messiah thinks that kids are “punishment”, then it’s pretty safe to assume that your party isn’t exactly what we would call “pro-life”, now is it?

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Senate Dems: “free” health care not cool if performed by a Republican

Wait…I thought “free” health care was a good thing?  Man, I just don’t get these #ssclowns!  From The Hill:

Coburn has come under new pressure from the Ethics panel for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, which changed from a public to a private institution in April last year….

In May, Coburn received a strongly worded “final determination” memo threatening him with a Senate censure if he did not stop delivering babies for free….

Coburn spokesman John Hart… called the Ethics panel’s logic “absurd” and its argument “inane.” …

As Jill Stanek observed:

Were Tom Coburn aborting babies free instead of delivering them free, there would be no investigation; there would be an awards ceremony.

Seriously, is this a battle the left really wants to fight?

Obama lies on his abortion position

The Obamaliar caught with his moist finger in the political winds again.  From Ed Morrissey:

Barack Obama offered another “inartful” statement that appeared to reverse his position on late-term abortions. In an interview with Relevant Magazine, Obama said that “mental distress” shouldn’t be a qualifier for a second- or third-trimester abortion — reversing his own vote on the partial-birth abortion ban. By yesterday, Obama had hit reverse again to get back in a campaign press conference.

Obama started this tempest with this inartful response:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

That reverses his own position on late-term abortions, where he has championed mental-health exceptions for late-term abortion bans. Sensing an obvious backlash, Obama then tried to clarify his position with the press. The Swamp has the retreat quote:

My only point is this — historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case.

I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.

Historically, courts have adopted a very expansive view of mental-health threats, which is why abortion opponents fight against the vague definitions used in such bills for exceptions to bans. A competent Constitutional law scholar would know this and would not have offered that specific formulation to Relevant without understanding its meaning. Even more than gun rights, abortion has been the biggest Constitutional issue in the US since Obama was in grade school. How can he not be prepared to speak clearly on this issue?

If you’re pro-choice or pro-life, fine.  Just pick a side and defend it.  Don’t lie through your friggin’ teeth and insult our intelligence.

Obama supports infanticide

Too extreme of a title?  You tell me.

Obama thinks babies are “punishment”

This would explain why he thinks partial birth abortion is A-OK:

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” 

Exit question: What do you think he finds more objectionable, babies or personal responsibility/accountability?

Planned Parenthood busted: Sure, your donation can target a black baby!

Boy, that abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood really stepped in it this time.  Here’s the story from the Idaho Statesman:

Planned Parenthood of Idaho officials apologized Wednesday for what they called an employee’s “serious mistake” in encouraging a donation aimed at aborting black babies.

They also criticized The Advocate, a right-to-life student magazine at the University of California-Los Angeles, for trying to discredit Planned Parenthood employees in seven states in a series of tape-recorded phone calls last summer.

The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because “the less black kids out there the better.”

Kersey laughed nervously and said: “Understandable, understandable. … Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.”

On Tuesday, The Advocate released transcripts and audio recordings of this phone call and another to fundraising representatives in Ohio.

The student editor-in-chief of The Advocate said she’s not surprised by Planned Parenthood’s response and that the unedited recordings speak for themselves. The activist students think Planned Parenthood targets minorities and minority neighborhoods.

Seems pretty obvious to me.  Planned Infanticide’s response?

“A fundraising employee violated the organization’s principles and practices when she appeared to be willing to accept a racially motivated donation,” said CEO Rebecca Poedy in a written statement. “We apologize for the manner in which this offensive call was handled. We take full responsibility for the actions of the fundraising staff member who created the impression that racism of any form would be tolerated at Planned Parenthood. We took swift action to ensure that each of our employees understands their responsibility to communicate clearly with donors about the fact that we believe in helping all individuals, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, make informed decisions about their reproductive health care.”

Translation: “This is ridiculous, people!  We will help anyone kill their babies, regardless of whether the baby is black, white, gay, straight, male, female, etc.  But if you really had your heart set on offing a black child, then with your generous donation, we can certainly accomodate your request.”

These are sick, sick people.

Euro kills herself after aborting her twins

I’m pretty sure this isn’t going to be featured in any Planned Parenthood pamphlets or brochures.  From the UK:

An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: “I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum.”

Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day – her 31st birthday.

Her suicide note read: “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does.” 

Look, I am not about to cast stones at this poor woman.  She was so consumed by guilt that she ended her own life.  But as politically incorrect as it is to ask this exit question, I’m going to anyway: why is her death any more newsworthy than the death of her unborn twins?

AP: Pro-lifers more lethal than jihadis

Wow.  Just…wow.  From Newsbusters:

Let me get this straight: On September 11, 2001, terrorists brutally exterminated nearly 3,000 Americans, obliterated the landscape of lower Manhattan, and pummeled the headquarters of the United States’s national defense. And since that same date nearly six-and-a-half years ago, pro-lifers have committed a grand total of zero murders, attempted murders, and bombings directed at abortion workers and clinics across the United States and Canada.

So the Associated Press implies that the bigger threat of terrorism to this country comes from … pro-lifers? Here’s how the AP tells it:

When it comes to fears about a terrorist attack, people in the U.S. usually focus on Osama bin Laden and foreign-based radical groups. Yet researchers say domestic extremists who commit violence in the name of their cause — abortion or the environment, for example — account for most of the damage from such incidents in this country.

The AP’s reporting is simply a smear. Violent episodes against abortion clinics have been quite rare, especially in the last decade. Even the stats from National Abortion Federation (pdf) reveal this.

In his book On Message, Life Dynamics’ Mark Crutcher sums it up best: “The image of abortion workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire just to get from their car to the clinic door is utter nonsense.” Crutcher notes that in the years 1993 and 1994, the worst period of violence in pro-life history in which five abortionists and clinic workers were killed, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job. (The total number of murders that have occurred since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is seven.)

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Thousands march, MSM ignores

Had it been a protest of a dozen Code Pinkos on Walter Reed, the MSM would have been all over that like Ted Kennedy on a tray of Jello shots.  Instead, the MSM largely yawns.  From Michelle Malkin:

If they were illegal alien activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.

If they were anti-war activists, they’d get front-page coverage, multimedia packages, and prime time on TV airwaves.

They are pro-life activists who marched today to mark the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

You’ll be lucky to see photos like the one above buried somewhere in the back of your newspaper.

I don’t care what your view of abortion is, but you can’t deny that the double standard is quite obvious.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

Silky Pony likes health care choice, before he doesn’t

In Edwards’ eyes, you deserve a “health care choice” if you’re going to kill your baby.  Otherwise, you get no health care choices of any kind.  Silky Pone Pone on your own non-infanticide health care:

“I’m mandating healthcare for every man woman and child in America and that’s the only way to have real universal healthcare.”

“Evertime you go into contact with the helathcare system or the govenment you will be signed up.”

During a press avail following the event Edwards reiterated his mandate:

“Basically every time they come into contact with either the healthcare system or the government, whether it’s payment of taxes, school, going to the library, whatever it is they will be signed up.”

When asked by a reporter if an individual decided they didn’t want healthcare Edwards quickly responded, “You don’t get that choice.“ 

Silky on your other “health care choice”:

Q: What is your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?

A: This decision by the Supreme Court is a perfect example of what’s at stake in this election. The kind of people that will be appointed to the US Supreme Court by the next president will control whether a woman’s freedom, freedom to choose, make her own health care decisions will be made by her or will be made by the government or by some men sitting on the US Supreme Court. 

Totalitarian in all aspects, though the benevolent dictator will give you the option to suck your baby’s brains through a vacuum.  Mighty big of him, don’t you think?

“Daddy Nobucks”

A most excellent column by Amy Alkon:

A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one?

Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby — despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.

He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot — but should it have been?

As I wrote in my syndicated advice column, in no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. In an especially sick miscarriage of justice, even a man who says he was sexually victimized by an older woman from the time he was 14, has been forced to pay support for the child that resulted from underage sex with her. (That’s Canada for you, eh? – Ed.)

While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First , poses an essential question: “Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?”

A child shouldn’t have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there’s a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.

This isn’t 1522. If a woman really doesn’t want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that her partners latex up. Since it’s the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. (Now THAT is “quote of the day” material! – Ed.)

It’s one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he’s, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really “in the child’s best interest” to be the product of a broken home before there’s even a home to break up?

For all you boys out there, until that day there is actual male choice, don’t neglect the birth control…no matter what she tells you. Unless you’re a sterling judge of character, on the level of secret service agents and clinical psychologists, and unless you’re absolutely sure you’ve got an ethical and/or infertile girlfriend, or you personally watch her get Depo Provera injections…prudent thinking is never believing her when she says she can’t get knocked up, always bringing your own condom, and retaining custody over it at all times…lest it find its way to the business end of a pin. (This does happen! – Ed.)

Sound cynical? That’s what a lot of guys think — before they write to me about what they can say to persuade some girl to get an abortion, or whether there’s anything they can do to get out of paying child support…short of dying.

And yes, sure, you can say a man doesn’t have sex if he doesn’t want a child…but let’s discuss this as if we’re living in the real world, ‘kay?

Another wingnut alert: pyro torches wrong clinic

Two wingnut alerts in one day. Must be a record here at the Crush Liberalism Objective World News Service (CLOWNS). From Iowa:

A Detroit man was sentenced to five years in prison Friday for trying to burn down a women’s health clinic that he mistakenly thought performed abortions.

David McMenemy, 46, pleaded guilty in January to arson against a business affecting interstate commerce. He could have been sentenced up to 20 years in prison.

Police said McMenemy drove to Davenport and crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Health Care Center lobby at 4:30 a.m. on Sept. 11. He then lit a Gatorade bottle filled with gasoline on fire, walked away from his car and surrendered to firefighters.

McMenemy was ordered to pay $263,252 in restitution for damage to the clinic. The judge also ordered McMenemy to follow substance abuse treatment and continue to receive mental health treatment while imprisoned and when he is released.

“It was wrong,” McMenemy told U.S. District Court Judge John Jarvey at the sentencing hearing. “Even if it was an abortion clinic, it would still be wrong.

“I’m sorry for the hurt and shame of my family, and I want to distance myself from any pro-life organizations.”

The Edgerton clinic provides prenatal care and medical services to low-income and underprivileged women. It does not perform abortions, nor does it make abortion referrals, clinic officials said.

What a dumb#ss! If you’re going to be some religious nutbar who thinks he’s doing God’s work, at least make sure the voices in your head are getting their facts straight.

These fanatics are walking contradictions. If, as the prior post indicates, God wipes out the blights on humanity Himself via natural disasters, then why would He need us to carry out acts of arson on His behalf? Pick a nutbar talking point and stick to it, please!