Big Dogs House

Abortion Is Safer Than Birth, For Whom?

Jan 24, 2012 Political

A new study shows, according to those who researched it, that women are 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth than they are from complications of an abortion. Dr. Anne Davis tells us that both procedures are safe but they are trying to let women who have reproductive issues know that abortion is not as dangerous as the anti abortion forces claim.

There is no doubt that childbirth is very stressful for women. A lot of stress is placed on the body and sometimes there are complications that lead to death.

However, while a woman giving birth might be 14 times more likely to die than if she had an abortion, the unborn children are nearly 100% more likely to die from an abortion than from child birth. I say nearly 100% because some infants die during child birth and some survive an abortion attempt (until Obama lets them be murdered) but they are much more likely to survive childbirth than abortion.

The study only takes into account the women involved and does not mention the unborn children. The fact remains that if women never died during childbirth or abortion, the unborn child almost always dies during abortion and almost always lives after childbirth.

These studies are designed to make abortion more acceptable and to attempt to discredit those opposed to the procedure. Abortions are safe, don’t worry about it. My God, you are 14 times more likely to die giving birth than you are having an abortion. Get the abortion, it helps you, it protects you, and it lines the pockets of Planned Parenthood.

How long will it be before the federal government requires the abortion murder clinics to tell women they are safer having an abortion than having a child?

Imagine if doctors told women that they are relatively safe either way but that their unborn children are nearly 100% assured of dying a horrible death if they have the abortion.

I know liberals. It is a woman’s body and her right to do what she wants with it. My question is, if it is her body then why are they tearing the arms and legs off her unborn infant. Whose body is it that gets aborted?

Pesky little kids, thank goodness we have abortions so that girls are not punished with pregnancy and they can have the same chances as boys in our society.

And it is safer than giving birth.

Really, tell that to the unborn children who thought they were being protected by their mothers…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, lies, planned parenthood, safer, unborn child

Is It Part Of The Romney Pattern?

Sep 23, 2011 Political

During last night’s debate Governor Perry attacked former Masachusetts Governor Romney for a change in his position on Massachusetts’ health care as it would apply to the nation. Perry pointed out that a line was changed when Romney’s book was published in paperback.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Romney denied there was a change but after the debate one of his people noted that there was a change and indicated that this was a common practice when books are printed in paperback and new information is available.

The problem is that the new information available, Obamacare, did not necessitate the change in the book except that Obamacare is widely disliked and Romney wants to be president.

If this were the only thing that Romney had changed one could argue that he had time to evaluate what took place in Massachusetts and what took place in the country and came to a different conclusion. The problem is, Romney has a history of changing positions. It appears as if Romney will change his positions depending on political winds.

There is no doubt that Romney has the economic and business experience but he has changed positions on abortion and the Second Amendment, to name a few, and those changes smack of political expediency.

Will a president Romney change positions or compromise his principles should he be faced with a Congress in control of the other party? We already have a guy occupying the White House who was one thing during the campaign and is totally different now that he is in office and he, of course, is not the only one. We need leadership that is principled and a leader who will not change positions on core values and beliefs for political expediency.

Make no mistake about it, Romney would be a better leader than Obama as would anyone who was on the stage last night. But we do not need someone who is, at best, better than Obama. We need a principled leader who will follow his beliefs and do what he said he would do.

All candidates from all parties have their faults. They are human beings and there are problems with all of them (though Obama supporters think differently of their messiah) but a problem with consistency is an issue that deserves a closer look.

Source:
WLS 890

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, flip flops, health care, lies, obamacare, romney, Second Amendment

We Need To Find A Generic Republican

Jun 17, 2011 Political

In recent polls for the 2012 presidential contest, a contest that is a year and a half away, Barack Obama beats or ties most of the announced or potential Republican candidates. Romney has traded places atop the polls but for the most part, Obama is ahead of the pack.

The polling that asks about the generic Republican shows that Obama loses. Obama loses to an unnamed, unknown generic Republican but beats the current field. This shows two things. America is generally tired of Obama and wants a change in leadership and that the current crop (thus far) is not the change in leadership that they want.

This could change over time as right now allegiances are spread across a wide Republican field but as it stands right now, Obama beats them when he can’t beat the generic candidate.

Unless someone jumps out of the pack of Republicans and espouses what those polled see in the “generic” candidate, Republicans need to find that generic candidate somewhere else.

The population is looking for a conservative with a proven record of financial experience who has not wavered on core principles. The current pack has few of those in it. Romney gave us Obamacare light and has changed his positions on several issues. He is a smart money man but to many, Obamacare light is a deal breaker.

People have a right to change positions over time based on experience and knowledge but too often positions change based on politics and that is not the mark of a principled person. Plenty of politicians opposed abortion (or federal funding of it) but changed over time for political gain. Look at how many have no problem with federal funding of abortion under Obamacare. Al Gore changed his position completely when being pro life was not to his political advantage.

These are not principled positions. The Republicans need that person who has a solid record of conservative values and have been principled in the approach to these sensitive issues.

Who will that generic person be?

Right now it is hard to say if one of the current contenders is the one or if a new person will have to emerge.

But one thing is certain, whomever it is, the left and its media wing will wage a full scale assault on that person. Power is a strong incentive to many people who have less than honorable intentions.

The Rasmussen poll linked above shows that voters are likely to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate and that is the generic Republican. This is misleading when one considers that the individuals currently in the race lose when polled head to head against Obama (except Romney who trades places depending upon the poll). If current economic conditions persist it is possible for Obama to lose to any candidate but if they improve the Republicans will need a strong, principled candidate in order to win.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, conservative, democrat, generic, lies, obamacare, republican

Did She Really Want To Go There?

Apr 8, 2011 Political

Delegate Eleanor Holmes of DC is outraged at the way DC is being treated in the budget process. She is so upset that the federal government is telling DC what to do with its money in regard to paying for abortions.

It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell, Norton continued after explaining how an attached rider to the latest bill prevented D.C. from spending its own money on abortions for low income women. My FOX

We don’t need to get into the whole DC is not a state and falls under the federal government. Explaining the Constitution to liberals is a waste of time.

But what we do need to ask is why Norton chose these words to describe the process:

We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians. [same source]

A budget process that stops funding the murder of innocent life is like carpet bombing innocent civilians. Is she serious about this? Did she intend to equate the budget process to the killing of innocent civilians in order to justify the murder of innocent life?

Delegate Moron, the murder of innocent life is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.

Perhaps those cutting funding should have made that argument. Imagine how Holmes would be reacting of some politician said that allowing tax dollars to pay for abortion is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.

I bet Holmes would be apoplectic.

Liberals, fighting for the murder of the unborn each and every day…

And yes, please, fund our abortions but don’t pay the troops.

I hate liberals.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, bombing, eleanor holmes, lies

This Is The Model For Obamacare

Jul 26, 2010 Political

Barack Obama and his Democrats lied, cheated and stole to get the health care takeover bill passed and signed into law. There were bribes to members of Congress which means that taxpayer money was used to bribe members of Congress to vote for something that a majority of Americans opposed. There were the lies about federal funding of abortion. Bart Stupak abandoned his principles and voted for the bill because Obama assured him federal funds would not be used for abortion. Obama even signed an Executive Order. That order has been promptly ignored as two states, Pennsylvania and Maryland, have already established the high risk pools required under Obamacare and those pools will pay for abortions with federal money. To make it clear, those states will pay for elective abortions. This is specifically what the EO was supposed to prevent. As an aside, New Mexico had the abortion option in place but it has been removed because of the fuss over the issue.

The Democrats, despite the folly of their health care plan, promise us it will be cost effective and will not result in rationed care. They promised us we would be able to keep our doctors and that we would have choices. They wanted us to look at the model of health care, the NHS in Britain. Obama’s head health care guy has praised this system. And what has this wonderful system done?

It has taken steps to begin rationing care. Even the most basic and routine services including hip replacements will be rationed. Terminally ill patients will have to fend for themselves should they have problems on nights and weekends. Like Obama said, just send granny home with pain pills.

Suck it up granny!

Here are a few items being reported about the NHS (the dream of the Obama regime):

• Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.
• Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
• The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
• A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.
• Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.
• Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.
• Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

Telegraph UK

Ironically, the cuts were found in obscure appendices of policy and strategy documents. It is ironic because there are tons of things hidden in the US health care takeover law. Hell, a lot of it does not even deal with health care as the bill addresses reporting the purchase or sale of silver and gold. That is not an isolated thing.

Yes, the Obamacare model in England is falling apart but Obama and his sock puppets are working feverishly to impose these things on us because they want to take control of our lives. It is not about health and it is not about care, it is about control. They want to control us and taking over the health care system is one thing that must be done to control us. They also need to take over the financial sector (which they have just done) and they need to take over the news media which they are working on.

Once the Socialists have taken over these things they will clamp down on us and our lives. They will tell us what to eat, how much to weigh, what we may abuse (alcohol, tobacco etc) and how much, and they will tell us whether or not we can get certain things done.

And millions more will become dependent on government thereby increasing the dependent class from the social welfare recipients to the social medicine recipients. Better be good little peons or Obama will not let your momma get a new hip…

They might think they are in charge but they should remember John Q.

My family will never do without proper health care because of rationing as long as I can be there. Should any member of my family die or suffer harm because of denial of care (of course in my absence) then the world will lose the health care provider who decided not to render treatment . Any bureaucrat involved in the decision will likely never make such a decision again. Obamacare will ration care to the detriment of those involved including those who voted for him. People will not tolerate this.

Obama once said he was the only one standing between the bankers and the people with pitchforks. Once his health care takeover begins I doubt there will be anyone to stand between Obama and the people with pitchforks.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: abortion, england, health care, lies, nhs, Obama