Sibby Online

Abortion linked to child abuse

Now this study will be a surprise to Chad Schuldt and his pro-abortion minions:

A new report finds that women who have had an abortion are more likely to physically abuse their children.

Is there a link between abortion and later abuse? Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University studied over 500 women who had a pattern of neglecting or abusing their children.

"We did find that when a woman had one prior abortion, compared to those who didn’t have any history, were 144% more likely to physically abuse a subsequently born child."

David Reardon is with the Eliot Institute.

"The claim that abortion was going to rid us of child abuse and child neglect by getting rid of unwanted pregnancies before they are born, this is another nail in that coffin; that claim is simply false."

He says having an abortion haunts women years later.

"Unless they’ve been through some kind of post-abortion counseling program, they may struggle with more anger, with depression, with difficulty bonding with their children because of the child that’s not there."

Carrie Gordon Earll with Focus on the Family says women considering an abortion should take note.

"If you tell a woman that having an abortion may increase by two times the chance that she would abuse a child that was born I would think that’s information that a woman would want to have before she made an abortion decision."

Coleman also found that sometimes women who have an abortion become over-protective of children that come later. The report is based on a 1984 study of low-income women in Baltimore, Maryland. The women on average had an abortion six and half years prior to the study. The study appears in the European medical journal Acta Paediatrica.

Mainstream Coalition under the gun

This letter of mine was published in today’s Mitchell Daily Republic:

On October 1, Mel Olson said, "I have joined the board of the Mainstream Coalition because I believe that God and religion don’t belong in politics – on anybody’s side".

Stan Adelstein, another Mainstream Coalition member, violated that rule in the December 13 Chet Brokaw report on the abortion task force decision to endorse further rules on abortion. Adelstein took issue with the task force conclusion that it cannot be doubted that an unborn child is a whole human being from the time of conception. Adelsten is quoted, "I said on the record that as a Jew, I not only doubt but I do not believe it to be true. This is a religious belief and nothing more."

It appears to me that it is the members of the Mainstream Coalition who are making the political environment divisive by bringing up their religious beliefs. And perhaps Adelstein should visit the web site jewsforlife.org and then understand that there are members of the Jewish faith that believe, "life, both born and unborn, is sacred and worthy of protection". Therefore, I argue that Adelstein’s belief is more personal than religious. But that doesn’t stop Adelstein from using religion to stifle those he disagrees with.

In addition I believe the premise of the Mainstream Coalition, that positions that they view as being religious should be silenced, is flawed. If we talked and listened to religious viewpoints, we can learn from each other. But the attitude that because I am a Jew, no one can say, "an unborn child is a whole human being from the time of conception", is not only very closed minded, it is really sad.

Schuldt continues anti-family crusade

Bob Ellis has this response to the recent decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court on spanking of children:

Too few children are getting spanked too few times these days, which is why you have so many kids running around getting in trouble with the law. When I was a kids, I got WAY more than a mere 6 licks with a belt when I royally messed up (and on occasion a switch was used), and it didn't bruise my pweshus wittul ego--it eventually taught me to obey what was right and to stay away from what was wrong.

It's been said many times but remains true, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him. (Proverbs 13:24).

If you don't care whether your child learns to live in a fashion that is positive and productive (both for himself and those who come in contact with him), then go ahead and let him do whatever he wants. Don't believe me: go ahead and look around at all the parents who are either too lazy or to busy trying to be Mr. Nice Guy or who just don't give a rip about their kids and don't discpline them...and I'll show you some miserable kids, and some miserable parents.

If you saw someone about to stick their hand in a meat grinder, you'd do whatever it took to stop them, right? If you saw someone about to stick their hand into a den of snakes, you'd do whatever it took to stop them, right? Well, undisciplined youth is about as bad, if not worse.

Children don't come born with a developed sense of morality--only a keen sense of selfishness. Their sense of morality and right and wrong has to be developed...by their parents. Sometimes, until they develop the discipline to control themselves, it takes a punishment that is very unpleasant for them to deter them from the things they shouldn't be doing.

Abuse is NEVER allowable; I used to be in law enforcement, and know up close how terrible abuse can be. The difference between abuse and discipline is that abuse is brutal and springs from hate and rage; discipline comes from loving the child enough to do what it takes to teach them the right way, and to keep them from a path that will result in misery and ruin.

This decision (which admits no mark was left on the child) will just make it harder for parents to do their job...and anyone who comes in contact with the children who go undisciplined will pay the price.

Chad Schuldt, paid Daschle thug and slimer for Steve Hildebrand, said this in response to the Ellis position:

I guess this is another one of the things in their agenda to move us back to the good ol’ days of the 1950’s when women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, minorities knew their place, and kids got their due whipping. I’m increasingly convinced that is their agenda for America. I wish they’d leave society, start a commune and head up to the mountains somewhere to hit their kids.

Again Schuldt gives us insight into the far-left anti-family position as they attack parents. What most don’t realize is that the far-left also promotes this anti-parenting agenda in public education. I researched this when a ten-year-old, who was misbehaving in church, told his Uncle that he learned in school that spanking was abuse. I found the agenda hidden in a elementary school health curriculum via a lesson called good touch bad touch. South Dakota parents would be shocked if they only knew that their 5 to 8 year olds are being told in school that spankings are a bad touch and masturbation is a good touch.

It is amazing that the far-left believe women have a right to privacy in a Planned Parenthood clinic to take a child just before birth, slice open the back of their neck, and suck their brains out of their head. And that is not abusive. But parents can’t use corporal punishment in the privacy of their homes to teach their children right from wrong.

Again, another example of the far-left’s anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-American crusade.

Washington Post busted again

Here is more on the Clinton era:

The man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency's Bin Laden desk during the 1990s is accusing President Clinton of giving the CIA carte blanche to circumvent U.S. law and interrogate terrorist suspects in any way the agency saw fit - a directive that led to the establishment of secret CIA prisons on foreign soil.

"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture," recalled Michael Scheuer, who headed up the agency's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, in an interview Wednesday with the German newsmagazine Die Zeit.

Scheuer said Clinton replied: "That's up to you."

According to an Agence France Press summary of the Die Zeit interview, Scheuer explained that the Clinton administration "had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system."

The top Bin Laden hunter recalled that the extralegal directive came after "President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda."

The secret CIA interrogation process became known as "renditioning," Scheuer said, explaining that it included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.

"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he told Die Zeit. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."

Scheuer's revelations contradict a much ballyhooed Nov. 2, 2005 report in the Washington Post, which insisted that "the secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

After mistakenly claiming that renditioning began under President Bush, the Post noted that "considerable concern lingers [within the CIA] about the legality, morality and practicality" of the program.

Good news not found in the MSM

While on my search for the truth, I found this gem at Power Line:

Most serious economists believe that "productivity" -- measured by output per hour for the nonfarm business sector -- is the best single measure of what leads to differences in economic performance over time. In fact, Paul Krugman believed this when he was a serious economist (and he may still believe it, for all I know).

Arnold Kling reports that the average productivity growth from 2000-2005 is 50 percent higher than it was from 1995-2000, and about twice as high as during the previous ten years. Indeed, the average productivity growth rate in the last five years is the highest over the past half century. This means, in Kling's words, that "the economy today is in great shape."

Kling emphasizes, correctly, that the productivity numbers tell us nothing about economic policy under President Bush. Productivity growth, he reminds us, "is the economy's gift to policymakers, not the other way around." Productivity has a huge amount to do with the tools employees have to perform their work. Thus, technological breakthroughs can increase productivity, as can a better educated workforce. To the extent that government policy promotes technological breakthroughs or education, it does so only over time. While one can make intelligent arguments about which policies (and whose) might be affecting productivity, Kling warns that "we do not know how much of today's productivity growth reflects Clinton-era policies or Reagan-era policies or even the deregulation that began under President Carter."

I would argue that the Reagan-era tax cuts had the most influence.

America going in right direction

Here is the ending to a Ben Shapiro column (Read the whole thing):

Why are Americans so downhearted? Certainly, the media's focus on certain stories (FISA, Plame) at the expense of others (voting in Iraq, the economy) has dampened our enthusiasm while exacerbating our discontent. But at the end of 2005, let's pause for a moment and realize that despite 2005's tragedies, we are better off today than we were a year ago, or two years ago, or at any time since the attacks of Sept. 11. We are moving in the right direction. And 2006 will be even better.

Another UN scandal

From John Dougherty:

You've probably heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." This adage is especially applicable at the United Nations, where levels of corruption and mismanagement are surpassed only by the agency's ability to deny, obfuscate and cover up it's growing insignificance.

On Monday, London's Financial Times published the results of an investigation into the U.N.'s expenditures for Indian Ocean tsunami relief, of which the global organization sent out a hasty appeal for funding to member nations a year ago in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. In all, the effort netted $1.1 billion and so far, the United Nations has spent $590 million of that amount, FT reported.

But here's the catch: As much as one-third of that money was spent on U.N. "administration, staff and related costs," a figure that understandably alarmed investigators at the London-based paper.

Only, when reporters attempted to find out the details of what seemed like disproportionate "related costs," they were thwarted by U.N. agencies who, just months ago and in the wake of a damning report detailing the obscene oil-for-food scandal, pledged to be more "transparent" in their operations.

So many broken promises, so little time for honesty.

The racist Democrats

From Jeff Jacoby:

NOTHING BRINGS OUT RACIST slurs like an ambitious black man who doesn't know his ''place." So when Maryland's lieutenant governor, Michael Steele, announced his candidacy for the US Senate recently, the bigots reared up. On one popular website, The News Blog, Steele's picture was grotesquely doctored, making him look like a minstrel-show caricature. ''I's Simple Sambo and I's Running for the Big House," read the insulting headline accompanying the picture.

This wasn't some white supremacist slime from the right-wing fringe. The News Blog is a liberal site, and the reason for its racist attack on Steele, a former chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, is that he is a conservative. Specifically, a black conservative. As far as too many liberals are concerned, blacks who reject liberalism deserve to be smeared as Sambos and worse.

''Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael Steele . . . are fair because he is a conservative Republican," The Washington Times reported. ''Such attacks . . . include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an 'Uncle Tom,' and depicting him as a blackfaced minstrel."

Kyoto a fiasco

From NewsMax:

George Bush suffered heavy international criticism for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, but it now appears he was exactly right: The treaty is a "fiasco," Forbes magazine declares.

The treaty was negotiated in 1997 as a way to slow global warming, and formally took effect in February, without U.S. participation.

The Clinton administration agreed to the protocol, but the Senate refused to ratify it, in part because developing countries that were major polluters and trade competitors, particularly China and India, refused to participate in the Kyoto accord.

So right now "Kyoto is essentially a western European proposition," Forbes reports.

But "China and India together send more tons of carbon into the atmosphere than all of western Europe combined, and the U.S. accounts for more than China and India together."

Therefore it has become "painfully obvious that the treaty was a fiasco," Dan Seligman writes in Forbes.

Even Britain’s Tony Blair, a supporter of the protocol, seemed to admit defeat for the treaty when in a recent speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, he conceded: "No country is going to cut growth" – which is the only known way to cut emissions, according to Forbes.

Ironically, even western Europe is not reducing emissions. According to the protocol, western European nations must reduce their emissions to levels 8 percent lower than those of 1990. But in the years since the treaty was negotiated, carbon dioxide levels increased by 7 percent in France, 11 percent in Italy and 29 percent in Spain. Overall, the increase for western Europe was 5.4 percent.

"After many years of European chatter about the monstrous evil perpetrated by George W. Bush in rejecting Kyoto," Forbes concludes, "it is of possible interest that the increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. during those years was slightly lower (4.7 percent)."

Abortion, safe legal and rare

I don’t think so:

A Jackson abortion clinic, which closed in 2004, has been ordered by a Hinds County judge to pay a $500,000 default judgment to a woman who claimed she was injured in a 2003 procedure by a doctor who has since lost his medical license.

Circuit Judge Winston Kidd issued the judgment against New Woman Medical Center Inc. after it failed to answer Latosha Travis' lawsuit.

Dr. Malachy Dehenre and the clinic are defendants in the lawsuit.

A similar default judgment will be sought against Dehenre once he is located and served, said Travis' attorney, James Noble III.

"He has been evading the process server," Noble said.

Kidd, in his order issued this past week, granted Noble an additional four months to try to serve Dehenre.

"We haven't seen that one," Dehenre's attorney, Paul Mathis of Greenville, said Tuesday regarding Travis' lawsuit.

The clinic closed in August 2004 after Dehenre, its only abortion physician, had his license suspended following the death of a patient in Alabama and was cited for malpractice in the cases of three other women, including Travis.

Both Alabama and Mississippi suspended Dehenre's medical license indefinitely. The state of New York also suspended Dehenre's medical license.

Noble said his client almost bled to death from the procedure.

Travis, then 20, paid $680 for an abortion at the clinic, according to the lawsuit. She went to the clinic in March 2003 with her mother. The Jackson woman had at least one child already. Though she had planned to have more children later, according to the lawsuit, she had to have a hysterectomy after the procedure.