Month: September 2008

Jacksonville, Florida, 2.30 pm.

The Born Alive Infant Protect Act rears its head again. Here is factcheck.org on Obama’s votes. But the decision to put abortion at the front and center of the campaign makes my questions about Palin’s decision to put her own child’s life at risk of miscarriage from an amniocentesis all the more relevant, no?

Al Gore, call your office. Does McCain use a Blackberry?

Megan doesn’t approve of Democrats blaming Bush for the current crisis:

Democrats seem unable, or unwilling to grasp, that to the extent that this is a regulatory problem, the seeds were laid under Clinton, not Bush.  There simply haven’t been any significant financial regulatory changes over the last eight years that we can point to as the culprit; nor does "stronger enforcement" work as the solution to a crisis when the companies in trouble seem to have been in full compliance with the law.

So no responsibility for not recognizing the problem and not doing anythng about it for almost eight years? I’m not an expert but blaming the current meltdown entirely on … Clinton seems a stretch to me.

Bears.

That Youtube of Romney describing John McCain’s lies was from earlier this year. My sincere apologies. I have deleted the post. The transcript of the actual remarks are as follows:

ROBERTS: An awful lot of back and forth between you and Senator McCain. And I wonder, just a few days before the primary, is that what the voters want to hear? Didn’t they want to hear substance on the issues?

ROMNEY: Oh, I think substance. I think Senator McCain was called out for what everyone has said was a false accusation.

"The New York Times," "Washington Post," "Time" magazine, Bill Bennett, everybody has said what he said was simply wrong and reprehensible. I think it was a huge mistake on his part.

He wants to stick with it. So he got to take the shots for it, as long as he’s doing that. I think people are going to really say, what’s the heart and soul of the Republican Party going to be going forward?

An interesting debate has been going on out of the media limelight. Sarah Palin’s decision earlier this year to have an amniocentesis to determine if her unborn child had Down Syndrome is not uncontroversial among pro-lifers. I’d be curious to find out from women readers, especially pro-life women readers, what their views of amniocentesis are, and how common it is for totally principled pro-life pregnant women to consent to having them. The reason for the debate is two-fold: a) if you are not considering an abortion, there isn’t much point in having an amniocentesis; and  b) much more important for a pro-lifer, an amniocentesis poses a small but real risk to the life of an unborn child. According to the Christian News Service: 

Technological advances now allow women alternative pre-natal screenings to determine the risks of their child having Down syndrome, including blood tests and ultrasound.

But more reliable results require chromosome diagnostic testing such as amniocentesis, which collects amniotic fluid in the womb by inserting a needle through the woman’s abdominal wall into the uterus.

The procedure increases the normal rate of miscarriage, which is 2 percent to 3 percent, by ½ to 1 percent, according to Dr. Len Leshin, a pediatrician in Texas who has a son with Down syndrome and has written extensively on the subject.

So why would a pro-life woman choose the procedure that could lead to the death of her unborn child rather than the safe, less invasive procedure? I don’t know. It’s one of many mystifying weirdnesses in Palin;s own account of her pregnancy. Why do you need to know for sure that your baby has DS when it could mean a small risk of killing the child that you’re determined to keep alive? Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the procedure:

Although the procedure is routine, possible complications include infection of the amniotic sac from the needle, and failure of the puncture to heal properly, which can result in leakage or infection. Serious complications can result in miscarriage. Other possible complications include preterm labor and delivery, respiratory distress, postural deformities, fetal trauma and alloimmunisation (rhesus disease). The risk of amniocentesis-related miscarriage is generally thought to be 1 in 200,^[2] although a recent study has indicated this may actually be much lower, perhaps 1 in 1,600.^[2]

Almost all pregnant women are offered an amniocentesis. So I have two questions maybe you can help answer or move forward:

– Under what circumstances would a pregnant pro-life activist – as pro-life as it is possible to be – agree to have an amniocentesis?

– Is it logically possible to be against abortion even in cases of rape and incest and yet marginally risk the life of your own unborn child with an amniocentesis?

– Are there health issues that endanger the life of an older mother in having a baby with DS? I have been able to find none in my Internet searches, so maybe my readers can help.

Watch as two guys make out behind CNN’s reporter in a story on the Wall Street meltdown. At least some people have kept a sense of humor in all this.

This strikes me as very big news:

Pakistan’s military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

The orders, which come in response to a highly unusual Sept. 3 ground attack by U.S. commandos, are certain to heighten tensions between Washington and a key ally against terrorism. Although the ground attack was rare, there have been repeated reports of U.S. drone aircraft striking militant targets, most recently on Sept. 12.

                        

Tyler Cowen thinks Palin has her own agenda:

The people who are right now the happiest may end up the most concerned.  For better or worse, they’re about to lose control of their movement.

Who does he think he’s kidding? Do we have any idea of any agenda in her past except drilling for oil, the Assemblies of God, and her own ambition? Palin fits the Bush mold, but ratcheted up one more notch toward absurdity, and several more notches toward puppetry. She is a passionate Christianist – no legal abortion ever, no sex education, no gay rights, no embryonic stem cell research, creationism in schools. And she is being tutored by AIPAC and Joe Lieberman on foreign policy: war against Iran, war against Russia, permanent occupation of Iraq, and entrenchment of torture as a key American value.

All she has is ambition, the willingness to lie at any time about anything – and the ability to placate the two central constituencies: the Christianist base and the neocons. She is Bill Kristol’s wet dream: Dan Quayle with lipstick.