Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Kirsten Powers Speaks Out, and Powerfully on Reasonable Abortion Law...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Kirsten Powers is a woman of the left. Yet there has always been something about her that I knew set her apart from the pack. It's called COMMON SENSE Kirsten recently reaffirmed my belief in her ability to reason clearly.

THE DAILY BEAST - It’s amazing what is considered heroism these days.

A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

But the fight is not over. The bill will be reintroduced, and supporters of the ban are optimistic it will pass. For now, Wendy Davis has achieved the dubious victory of maintaining a very dark status quo. Texas women will still be able to abort a healthy baby up to the 26th week of pregnancy for any reason, as the current law allows.

According to the Parents Connect website, if you are in the 25th week of your pregnancy, “Get ready for pat-a-cake! Baby’s hands are now fully developed and he spends most of his awake time groping around in the darkness of your uterus. Brain and nerve endings are developed enough now so that your baby can feel the sensation of touch.” Let’s be clear: Davis has been called a hero for trying to block a bill that would make aborting this baby illegal.

In addition to the limit on late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 after the Gosnell horror. The New York Times warned that the Texas bill “could lead to the closing of most of Texas’s 42 abortion clinics.” That sounds familiar. In 2011, the Pennsylvania ACLU claimed a post-Gosnell bill “would effectively close most and maybe all of the independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania.” Last month, a Pennsylvania news site reported that “several” abortion clinics have closed, which isn’t quite the Armageddon the abortion-rights movement predicted.

So no, I don’t stand with Wendy. Nor do most women, as it turns out. According to a June National Journal poll, 50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest.

One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent. {Read More}

Kirsten Powers is a liberal democrat on the right side of the abortion debate. She, like the majority of American women understand the issues clearly. With women like Kirsten speaking out is there any doubt but what reason and common sense will ultimately prevail?

Kirsten, you go girl...


  1. Powers is a maverick and this is yet another example of her independence. While I personally wouldn't use 20 weeks as the cut-off point, I do have a cut-off point and the abortion on demand crowd are quite possibly the extremists here.

    1. I have a great deal of respect for Kirsten, as I do for all independent thinkers and reasonable people who regularly question the choir leaders on both sides of the political divide.

      There are more who just march in lockstep than not. A shame really.

    2. You won't find me ranting, that's for sure. You are more likely to find me nodding.

  2. "50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest."

    Can either of you, Will or Les, explain why aborting a fetus after 20 weeks is okay if the girl or woman has been raped or is a victim of incest? This is not consistent with what Powers said. You can't say abortion is wrong after a certain number of weeks, but okay if it's the result of rape or incest.

    People like Powers, and others who believe abortions should be banned after a certain number of weeks, cannot claim its okay to abort a pregnancy by rape or incest. To be consistent, there should be no exceptions. I don't agree with this, BTW, I'm just pointing out Powers' and others' inconsistencies here.

    What are your thoughts.

    Also, what about saving the life of the mother in cases where she may have a life-threatening condition during the last trimester and there are other children at home? Should we save the fetus and let the mother die, leaving her other children motherless? Should we save the mother and lose the fetus? Allowing the mother to have other children?

    These sorts of pregnancies DO happen. If abortion is outlawed after a certain number of weeks, then what happens to a girl or woman under those conditions. Thoughts?

    Also, some men apparently don't know that some women have their periods or bleed even when they're pregnant. Believe me. So outlawing all abortions no matter the reasons after a certain number of weeks doesn't take into consideration that all pregnancies are not the same and that nature is imperfect. How could a girl or woman know how far along she is if she is among those who have bleeding during the early months of pregnancy?

    One size fits all does not work in this issue.

    No pro-choice person I know condones late term abortions as a means of birth control or because it's an inconvenient pregnancy. But there have been cases when women become gravely ill at late term. If abortion is outlawed, what happens to the girl or woman who faces this horrible situation?

    Again, this does happen.

    It's very easy to make these decisions when your own life or the life of a loved one is not involved.

    Believe me, unexpected complications happen in pregnancies. Passing laws that condemn girls and women to die in these instances is not an answer either.

    1. I have made my position quite clear on abortion and what I believe are reasonable restrictions.

      1) Beyond the point of fetal viability (20 to 21 weeks)abortion should be prohibited EXCEPT to save the life of the women.

      2) In the case of rape and incest, if the pregnancy has progressed beyond fetal viability the pregnancy should proceed to full term. As rape is a situation where the woman really had no control, and the state places the restriction on the abortion I would be open to discussion as to the cost being born by the state. In the case of incest the incestuous the incestuous father should bear financial responsibility.

      In all of these situations the period of 20 or 21 weeks is sufficient time to make the decision to abort.

      I believe I have been consistent for many years and a few posts.

      3) As to Powers, I may be missing something (I admit to having done so on occasion) but I believe she is consistent with her position on the 20 week threshold. If I have missed something (I quickly skimmed the linked items in the post) I will find it Wednesday after I have had time to review the links in derail. I'll get back to you.

      4) You pose a reasonable question with respect to a mother who develops a bonafide life threatening condition in the third trimester, with or without existing children. My response is, if it is safe to take the baby either through inducing labor or cesarean section it should be done. If not, and the mother chooses abortion then the state should waive the 20 week threshold. Ideally written into the law.

      5) Well, I realize that some women bleed during pregnancy. Are there no other indications like weight gain and or morning sickness? Lets assume not for arguments sake. My position remains consistent. At the point of viability the developing baby must be afforded the opportunity for live birth. Adoption is ethical remedy IMNHO.

      6) I have known women who have advocated a woman's right to late term abortion, admittedly a small number. And late term abortions have happened. This is immoral and barbaric.

      I understand the emotional issue with the example of a gravely ill women in late third trimester. I believe I answered that in #4 above. I am sympathetic to this and agree it should be handled with compassion for the women, her husband or significant other, and other family members.

      I fully understand circumstances out of the norm can and do occasionally occur. However, having said this, someone (and it should be society) must look out for those unable of looking out for themselves. Viability (20 -21 weeks) sems a reasonable compromise.

      Work on writing in safeguards in the law for those situations we are discussing rather than continue on with the current insanity from some on both sides of this debate.

  3. Les, you said,

    "I have known women who have advocated a woman's right to late term abortion, admittedly a small number. And late term abortions have happened. This is immoral and barbaric."

    I totally agree... I recall going out with a young lady some time back who was a vehement late term abortion supporter. I even pinned her down during a particular discussion and she admitted that abortion should be legal PERIOD, even just moments before birth and even for birth control.

    My jaw hit the floor - to hear someone defend something so barbaric. Kudos to Powers!

    1. The left needs many more like Kirsten.

      Fortunately the number of women that think like the one you dated some time back if few.

    2. Left: Even more extreme are Gosnell-enablers like Russ Feingold, who strongly advocated abortion after birth. I have run into many supporters of his. He's a real maniac with a strong record of opposing human rights/civil liberties, so it is par for the course for him.

  4. I've heard Russ Feingold might run for governor of WI. I'd vote for him if I lived there. I vote for him for president in a heartbeat. He's one of the good ones. Dennis fibs about Feingold being a "Gosnell enabler". His statement is utter baloney.

    1. I'm not a Feingold supporter, and I do not know with certainty what his position on reproductive rights of a woman are. I assume (not A GOOD THING) that dmarks was checked out his statements and position since he used him as a specific example.

      Perhaps, if you'd be so inclined, you might post a link to Russ's position statement on the issue and his voting record with respect to same.

      Perhaps it would give fertilizer for more discussion on this important issue.

  5. I told the truth about Feingold wanting abortionists to be able to kill people who are already born (and thus competely protected as legal US citizens)_ without any due process which is required, and a bloodthirsty disregard for law and rights. Feingold in his campaign finance reform also sought to criminalize the act of individuals criticizing those in power (censoring political speech that was not even part of a campaign).

    Wd tells whoppers and dares to accuses those who are much better informed of "fibbing".

  6. Feingold's actual statements are addressed here (just one of many places()

    The Political Guide

    He managed to make Santorum come out as a voice of moderation and reason on the abortion issue. No mean feat: While I oppose abortion and tend more toward Santorum's views, I never make the mistake of believing that my own views are the center/moderation if they aren't: I measure such things from the actual public center.

    Click on "View the Full text of this item." a few lines below "Partial Birth Abortion"

    The historic record can't be removed. In an act of deception and virtual vandalism, Feingold had the Congressional Record altered to hide what he said. But it might have backfired.

  7. Dennis, your comments about measuring from the center are hysterical! BTW, what is up with my comment being published? I assumed it would not be, so I didn't sign up for emails or check back. I've been telling people RN banned me. Am I banned or not? I was planning on writing a post for my blog about places I've been banned. Should my post include RN or not?

    As for the "Gosnell enabler" comment being a "fib", I'll retract that. It was a flat out vile and ugly lie. Feingold did nothing to "enable" Gosnell. Gosnell broke the law and was convicted of murder (which he wouldn't have been if he were "enabled"). As for Feingold's comments, you can't crush the head of a fetus with forceps and then try to save it if it is "accidentally born". Dennis inanely suggested you should. The argument he presented was pure stupidity.

    1. DS/wd, My policy is stated clearly, I think. Please read.

      "As this site encourages free speech and expression, any and all political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will, however, be removed.

      Due to a recent increase in the number of comments by non person(s) using the moniker "ANON".. IE: those who add nothing of substance be advised your comment will be summarily deleted as soon as blog administrator becomes aware of such comment effective 6/23/11.

      "ANON" comments of substance will continue to be posted."

      The above is standard procedure.

      Comments with substance, which is determined solely by me because I am the sole blog administrator and therefore the only person determining if something has enough substance to print a comment. Attacking another commenter is also reason to not get your comment published. Or by being a troll with the only purpose to be argumentative.

      You are on probation. Make the most of it.

  8. Failed former senator Russ Feinhold (handily rejected by the people of Wisconsin) has an extreme view in which he favors an abortionist killing born American citizens. He's in record for it. This is quite Gosnell-like. The only "pure stupidity" lies in Feingold's extremism. And it is not surprising that Feingold's own arguments made little sense. Don't attack me for the stupidity of Feingold's statements. He is the one that made them. not me.

    It is a very extreme situation (with abortionists killing born American citizens for fun and profit) which Feingold argued for. Both Feingold and Gosnell exist in what Les accurately described as the "rabid left" in the other post.

    It is also a very extreme view, Les. Far from the 20-week compromise, middle ground, reason-based view that you argued and I find to be a good step, myself.


    As to whether DS gets banned here, it is entirely up to Les/"Rational Nation". I have nothing to do with it, and never have. I banned him forever from my blog because of his mental breakdown in which for days he sent me dozens of profanity-laced comments in which he boasted of his penis length... and the time he impersonated Will.

    I am not aware if he has been mindlessly machine-gunning dozens of comments per day, ever at "Rational Nation", but Will has indicated something to the effect of WD/DS doing this to his blog for weeks on end. Will Hart has his own reason for having banned WD/DS, which have nothing to do with me. I simply do not have that power over him.

    Of course, I will lift my own ban if he apologizes for the behavior and promises to behave like a civil human being.

    Hint: Mindless "You Suck!" comments left at people's blogs do not endear a person to anyone.

  9. wd/DS, somehow I inadvertently deleted your response to dmarks. You know, the one you said you refused to apologize and basically said dmarks would have to apologize for his remarks.

    Frankly your writing was not all that clear. But if you want to re compose your "thoughts" and send them over I'll let em rip. If they meet the criteria.

    Take it away wd/DA...

  10. I think Dennis actually believes these untruths he keeps repeating about me. I said his blog was boring on several occasions. Does he consider the word "boring" to be profanity? Otherwise I don't get it. I used no profanity. I never boasted of my penis length. I did not even say "you suck". Those things simply did not happen. I'd be willing to resume commenting on the blog of Dennis occasionally (if the post isn't too boring) if he published a public apology. He needs to apologize to me. I am not going to apologize to him. Dennis can stop asking because it is never going to happen.

    Also, as for your comment that you are "not aware if he has been mindlessly machine-gunning dozens of comments per day"... you obviously didn't read my prior comment. I said I left this blog (thinking I was banned), didn't sign up for email notifications and didn't check back. So there is your answer. It is no.

    As for Gosnell, he broke the law! Feingold said we should trust doctors (and I am in complete agreement with him on that), but that trust does not extend to illegal acts. According to you Feingold said doctors that provide abortions can completely ignore the law. Feingold never said he favors an abortionist killing born American citizens. It can't be a matter of record because it never happened!

    I am in agreement with Feingold that doctors should be making these decisions. Sounds reasonable to me that the people with the skills and training should be making these decisions... and NOT Congresspersons. Dennis considers that an "extreme" position, I don't. I say blanket rules that must be followed in every situation don't work. But this is the kind of logic you get when you decide to make medical decisions based on politics instead of medical knowledge.

  11. Feingold: the sole vote against the Patriot Act. Acting at the behest of the Koch brothers, the WI voters kicked him out.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.