<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama Administration to abort life-saving policies.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:55:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark_Kilmer’s blog » Obama Administration to abort life-saving &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2635</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark_Kilmer’s blog » Obama Administration to abort life-saving &#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2635</guid>
		<description>[...] Mark_Kilmer’s blog » Obama Administration to abort life-saving &#8230; Now, there are many people very upset with the Republican Party right now. The party can be characterized as sometimes feeble and ineffective in the fight against the Democrats. Taking the knee against Obama and Chicago-land will be &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Mark_Kilmer’s blog » Obama Administration to abort life-saving &#8230; Now, there are many people very upset with the Republican Party right now. The party can be characterized as sometimes feeble and ineffective in the fight against the Democrats. Taking the knee against Obama and Chicago-land will be &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Menlo</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2634</link>
		<dc:creator>Menlo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:59:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2634</guid>
		<description>I would not single out Catholic hospitals. Most hospitals in the nation do not allow abortions. Several states also prohibit hospitals they fund from doing them.

That&#039;s no obstacle to the pro-abortionists in Congress though. They&#039;ll just override states&#039; laws and implement a policy like that of Denmark requiring every county to have an abortion-providing hospital.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not single out Catholic hospitals. Most hospitals in the nation do not allow abortions. Several states also prohibit hospitals they fund from doing them.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s no obstacle to the pro-abortionists in Congress though. They&#8217;ll just override states&#8217; laws and implement a policy like that of Denmark requiring every county to have an abortion-providing hospital.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Menlo</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2633</link>
		<dc:creator>Menlo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2633</guid>
		<description>First of all, no woman in this country would ask a regular doctor to do an abortion. They go to the first page in the yellow pages to find abortionists. Funny how people still don&#039;t seem to understand that abortionists are segregated from real doctors in this country. I find it impossible that any case could arise prompting the feds to shut down a hospital because no one there will do an abortion.

Second, doctors will not do something they believe will be harmful to a patient&#039;s life or health. A doctor who believes abortion is harmful will not have any need to do one. I suspect this happens a lot with legitimate medical procedures. Doctors can disagree about what procedures should or should not be done. There is no law that then compels doctors who disagree to do it anyway or to find a referral. 

People supporting the right to conscience are doing themselves a disservice by implying there is some element of spiritual or supernatural belief involved. If it is, then opposition would not be legitimate; and such people are in the wrong profession. Instead of asking for &quot;conscience protection,&quot; doctors would be better served by simply stating, when the matter arises, that the risk outweighs the benefit; and they aren&#039;t going to cause harm to one&#039;s life or health, which abortion does by definition.

Regardless, no woman in the US ever goes to a normal doctor&#039;s office or hospital asking for an abortion, so this situation as implied will never arise. 

I suppose there could be times in hospitals where subordinates to doctors may have conflicts where a pregnant woman is already in the hospital because she and/or her unborn child has a serious condition. Such concerns should only be addressed more narrowly though.

I don&#039;t think Obama can directly fund abortions without an act of Congress, and there are several otherwise pro-abortion Democrats who favor the Hyde Amendment. Regardless, this will be something to keep an eye on. The Mexico City policy only deals with those who may refer for abortions. Given the policies and practices of other countries, I don&#039;t think that policy has much impact on the number of abortions in other countries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, no woman in this country would ask a regular doctor to do an abortion. They go to the first page in the yellow pages to find abortionists. Funny how people still don&#8217;t seem to understand that abortionists are segregated from real doctors in this country. I find it impossible that any case could arise prompting the feds to shut down a hospital because no one there will do an abortion.</p>
<p>Second, doctors will not do something they believe will be harmful to a patient&#8217;s life or health. A doctor who believes abortion is harmful will not have any need to do one. I suspect this happens a lot with legitimate medical procedures. Doctors can disagree about what procedures should or should not be done. There is no law that then compels doctors who disagree to do it anyway or to find a referral. </p>
<p>People supporting the right to conscience are doing themselves a disservice by implying there is some element of spiritual or supernatural belief involved. If it is, then opposition would not be legitimate; and such people are in the wrong profession. Instead of asking for &#8220;conscience protection,&#8221; doctors would be better served by simply stating, when the matter arises, that the risk outweighs the benefit; and they aren&#8217;t going to cause harm to one&#8217;s life or health, which abortion does by definition.</p>
<p>Regardless, no woman in the US ever goes to a normal doctor&#8217;s office or hospital asking for an abortion, so this situation as implied will never arise. </p>
<p>I suppose there could be times in hospitals where subordinates to doctors may have conflicts where a pregnant woman is already in the hospital because she and/or her unborn child has a serious condition. Such concerns should only be addressed more narrowly though.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think Obama can directly fund abortions without an act of Congress, and there are several otherwise pro-abortion Democrats who favor the Hyde Amendment. Regardless, this will be something to keep an eye on. The Mexico City policy only deals with those who may refer for abortions. Given the policies and practices of other countries, I don&#8217;t think that policy has much impact on the number of abortions in other countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mbecker908</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2632</link>
		<dc:creator>mbecker908</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2632</guid>
		<description>is concerned, there is exactly one thing, and IMO only one thing that might stop him from going forward.  A credible threat by the US Catholic Bishops to shut down Catholic hospitals.

OTOH, this might be an interesting ploy to backdoor nationalized healthcare.  Catholic hospitals provide a very high percentage of hospital beds nationally (upwards of 40% I&#039;m guessing).  Threatening closure would create a &quot;national health emergency&quot;, especially among the poor, and would give Obama a reason to nationalize those hospitals and keep them open.  I&#039;m sure no shortage of unions would support that move as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>is concerned, there is exactly one thing, and IMO only one thing that might stop him from going forward.  A credible threat by the US Catholic Bishops to shut down Catholic hospitals.</p>
<p>OTOH, this might be an interesting ploy to backdoor nationalized healthcare.  Catholic hospitals provide a very high percentage of hospital beds nationally (upwards of 40% I&#8217;m guessing).  Threatening closure would create a &#8220;national health emergency&#8221;, especially among the poor, and would give Obama a reason to nationalize those hospitals and keep them open.  I&#8217;m sure no shortage of unions would support that move as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: asleep06</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2631</link>
		<dc:creator>asleep06</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:57:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2631</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s quite reasonable and prudent to make preparations to fight a possible Obama move to remove conscience protections.  It would be silly to wait until it actually was happening to publicize the possibility and think about responses, for then it would be too late.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s quite reasonable and prudent to make preparations to fight a possible Obama move to remove conscience protections.  It would be silly to wait until it actually was happening to publicize the possibility and think about responses, for then it would be too late.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kilmer</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2630</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kilmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2630</guid>
		<description>Listen up.  Obama is and has been a product of Chicago politics.  Many of his closest advisors are the same.  This is part of Obama.  This is proven, and when he tries to bring his neighborhood to the federal level, to the White House, he is to be opposed.  By the opposition.

Now, there are many people very upset with the Republican Party right now.  The party can be characterized as sometimes feeble and ineffective in the fight against the Democrats.  Taking the knee against Obama and Chicago-land will be seen by the grassroots, eager to keep fighting now more than ever, as more of the same.

No, we cannot base our opposition on this, but it is a key component.  And we must oppose Obama because of what he would do to our country.  Corruption is an issue.

I could not care less about Newt.  He&#039;s mentioned only because he is one of the folks leading the &quot;allow Obama to govern&quot; charge.

Now, in the future, be respectful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listen up.  Obama is and has been a product of Chicago politics.  Many of his closest advisors are the same.  This is part of Obama.  This is proven, and when he tries to bring his neighborhood to the federal level, to the White House, he is to be opposed.  By the opposition.</p>
<p>Now, there are many people very upset with the Republican Party right now.  The party can be characterized as sometimes feeble and ineffective in the fight against the Democrats.  Taking the knee against Obama and Chicago-land will be seen by the grassroots, eager to keep fighting now more than ever, as more of the same.</p>
<p>No, we cannot base our opposition on this, but it is a key component.  And we must oppose Obama because of what he would do to our country.  Corruption is an issue.</p>
<p>I could not care less about Newt.  He&#8217;s mentioned only because he is one of the folks leading the &#8220;allow Obama to govern&#8221; charge.</p>
<p>Now, in the future, be respectful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikefisk</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2629</link>
		<dc:creator>mikefisk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2629</guid>
		<description>...without any solid evidence about such a policy change, the line of thinking in this article comes off as paranoid and reactionary.  I&#039;d rather fight the battles we know about rather than start tilting at windmills.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;without any solid evidence about such a policy change, the line of thinking in this article comes off as paranoid and reactionary.  I&#8217;d rather fight the battles we know about rather than start tilting at windmills.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Streiff</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2628</link>
		<dc:creator>Streiff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2628</guid>
		<description>it is thinking like this that got McCain killed in November and continue to buy into this kind of nonsense ensures us of eight years of Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it is thinking like this that got McCain killed in November and continue to buy into this kind of nonsense ensures us of eight years of Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes314</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2627</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes314</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2627</guid>
		<description>I know I hit it. Both times. I think.

I need more coffee.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know I hit it. Both times. I think.</p>
<p>I need more coffee.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Gardner</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2626</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Gardner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2626</guid>
		<description>n/t</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>n/t</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes314</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2625</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes314</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2625</guid>
		<description>I clearly said...

&lt;b&gt;I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.&lt;/b&gt;

I am totally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to being clueless. Your implication is still false, as in divorced from reality. And there is no way to argue it was anything but gratuitous. He didn&#039;t say to give Obama a free pass. He said to avoid going after him on this particular issue, as there has yet to be anything to tie him to it. And your statement above...

&lt;blockquote&gt; Taking a knee on Obama&#039;s behavior in relation to his cronies and Cook County politics opens the door wider for Obama to make such dramatic rule changes by acclaim. The RNC is keeping the base, the grassroots, in the game. The other fellow is advocating, taking a knee, at least until the Obama changes have been made.&lt;/blockquote&gt; 

...is 180 degrees out of whack. By engaging in blatantly partisan attacks Without Any Evidence, you merely undermine the GOPs credibility and enhance his.

Should we go for a full court press on the birth certificate &#039;issue&#039; as well?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I clearly said&#8230;</p>
<p><b>I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.</b></p>
<p>I am totally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as to being clueless. Your implication is still false, as in divorced from reality. And there is no way to argue it was anything but gratuitous. He didn&#8217;t say to give Obama a free pass. He said to avoid going after him on this particular issue, as there has yet to be anything to tie him to it. And your statement above&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p> Taking a knee on Obama&#8217;s behavior in relation to his cronies and Cook County politics opens the door wider for Obama to make such dramatic rule changes by acclaim. The RNC is keeping the base, the grassroots, in the game. The other fellow is advocating, taking a knee, at least until the Obama changes have been made.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;is 180 degrees out of whack. By engaging in blatantly partisan attacks Without Any Evidence, you merely undermine the GOPs credibility and enhance his.</p>
<p>Should we go for a full court press on the birth certificate &#8216;issue&#8217; as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vegas_Rick</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2624</link>
		<dc:creator>Vegas_Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2624</guid>
		<description>n/t</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>n/t</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MelZ</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2623</link>
		<dc:creator>MelZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2623</guid>
		<description>My husband is about to finish med school now.

You have a huge decision to make, and it is one that will deter many from entering the field.

In trying to sway my inlaws vote, I figured out our ROI on medical school.  With my working 2 sometimes 3 jobs to take care of our household finances, with my husband working while in school to supplement this, with him signing a rural match program to get our student debt down, the investment is a huge one...not to mention the mental investment of seven years beyond college of higher education.  Taking into consideration, JUST the tax bracket we will fall after residency our ROI was negative for about 7 years and that is with my husband moonlighting.

That&#039;s not even considering the possibility of socialized health which will fill clinics beyond capacity, making doctors over worked and under paid.

We need more good doctors as it is, and I hope you are personally driven toward medicine, but under Obama your decision will be a very difficult one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My husband is about to finish med school now.</p>
<p>You have a huge decision to make, and it is one that will deter many from entering the field.</p>
<p>In trying to sway my inlaws vote, I figured out our ROI on medical school.  With my working 2 sometimes 3 jobs to take care of our household finances, with my husband working while in school to supplement this, with him signing a rural match program to get our student debt down, the investment is a huge one&#8230;not to mention the mental investment of seven years beyond college of higher education.  Taking into consideration, JUST the tax bracket we will fall after residency our ROI was negative for about 7 years and that is with my husband moonlighting.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not even considering the possibility of socialized health which will fill clinics beyond capacity, making doctors over worked and under paid.</p>
<p>We need more good doctors as it is, and I hope you are personally driven toward medicine, but under Obama your decision will be a very difficult one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kilmer</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2622</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kilmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:37:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2622</guid>
		<description>&quot;It was the false and gratuitous implication...&quot;

No it was not.

Newt Gingrich urged Republicans to give Obama a free pass until he becomes President, then we can engage him in a policy debate.  No matter what you think the the RNC ad, Newt&#039;s is a losing strategy.  If you disagree with that, you can explain why.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It was the false and gratuitous implication&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>No it was not.</p>
<p>Newt Gingrich urged Republicans to give Obama a free pass until he becomes President, then we can engage him in a policy debate.  No matter what you think the the RNC ad, Newt&#8217;s is a losing strategy.  If you disagree with that, you can explain why.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kilmer</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2621</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kilmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2621</guid>
		<description>in relation to his cronies and Cook County politics opens the door wider for Obama to make such dramatic rule changes by acclaim.  The RNC is keeping the base, the grassroots, in the game.  The other fellow is advocating, taking a knee, at least until the Obama changes have been made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>in relation to his cronies and Cook County politics opens the door wider for Obama to make such dramatic rule changes by acclaim.  The RNC is keeping the base, the grassroots, in the game.  The other fellow is advocating, taking a knee, at least until the Obama changes have been made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes314</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2620</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes314</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2620</guid>
		<description>It was the false and gratuitous implication that since Newt advised against going after The One right out of the box on a scandal that he has yet to be tied to, that he was saying to go soft on the guy and ignore substantive issues. I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was the false and gratuitous implication that since Newt advised against going after The One right out of the box on a scandal that he has yet to be tied to, that he was saying to go soft on the guy and ignore substantive issues. I have no problem with the gist of the post, merely the clueless or disingenuous slam on Newt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MelZ</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2619</link>
		<dc:creator>MelZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2619</guid>
		<description>Most funding for abstinence education has already been cut (that is why I was looking for a new job 4 months ago).
The funding that did exist for abstinence education had 8 tenants that had to be followed to a &quot;T&quot;.
The funding for &quot;comprehensive&quot; education had little regulation.
Abstinence education promotes; abstinence, healthy choices and protection.  It also delves into drugs, alcohol, peer pressure, healthy relationships, etc.
While &quot;comprehensive&quot; education only dedicates less than 15% of their curriculum to abstaining.
For ...well ever, comprehensive has received $12 to each $1 abstinence has received and look what&#039;s going on 50% of black youth have an STD, 1 in 4 sexually active teens has an STD, pregnancy rates through the roof!

Now doctors will be forced to perform a procedure, that a young woman does not NEED?  A procedure that would not even have been requested had a decent education on the matter been allowed?

Makes PERFECT sense to me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most funding for abstinence education has already been cut (that is why I was looking for a new job 4 months ago).<br />
The funding that did exist for abstinence education had 8 tenants that had to be followed to a &#8220;T&#8221;.<br />
The funding for &#8220;comprehensive&#8221; education had little regulation.<br />
Abstinence education promotes; abstinence, healthy choices and protection.  It also delves into drugs, alcohol, peer pressure, healthy relationships, etc.<br />
While &#8220;comprehensive&#8221; education only dedicates less than 15% of their curriculum to abstaining.<br />
For &#8230;well ever, comprehensive has received $12 to each $1 abstinence has received and look what&#8217;s going on 50% of black youth have an STD, 1 in 4 sexually active teens has an STD, pregnancy rates through the roof!</p>
<p>Now doctors will be forced to perform a procedure, that a young woman does not NEED?  A procedure that would not even have been requested had a decent education on the matter been allowed?</p>
<p>Makes PERFECT sense to me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: E Pluribus Unum</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2618</link>
		<dc:creator>E Pluribus Unum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2618</guid>
		<description>Obama has made his views and his intentions ABUNDANTLY clear.  This is not a closet abortion advocate.  This is a guy who argued for, not merely voted for, PBA and &#039;let em die in the linen closet&#039; measures.  We don&#039;t have to wait for events to unfold.  We know what he plans to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama has made his views and his intentions ABUNDANTLY clear.  This is not a closet abortion advocate.  This is a guy who argued for, not merely voted for, PBA and &#8216;let em die in the linen closet&#8217; measures.  We don&#8217;t have to wait for events to unfold.  We know what he plans to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes314</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2617</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes314</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2617</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Some would-be Republican leaders tell us that we “should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office” instead of calling attention to his background and his intentions. I can’t take a knee on this one.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

There is a slight difference between waiting for evidence before scandal mongering and &#039;takinmg a knee&#039; on actual issues. 

Good try though. Okay, not really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Some would-be Republican leaders tell us that we “should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office” instead of calling attention to his background and his intentions. I can’t take a knee on this one.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is a slight difference between waiting for evidence before scandal mongering and &#8216;takinmg a knee&#8217; on actual issues. </p>
<p>Good try though. Okay, not really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikefisk</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/2008/12/17/obama-administration-to-abort-life-saving-policies/#comment-2615</link>
		<dc:creator>mikefisk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/mark_kilmer/?p=227#comment-2615</guid>
		<description>...apparently being &quot;pro-choice&quot; to a modern Democrat only applies to one particular medical procedure that is, even in the more glowing of terms for it, rather grisly business.

Nowhere in their formulation of being &quot;pro-choice&quot; supports the doctor&#039;s right to choose in the least.

At the very least, can&#039;t they at least be intellectually honest?  I know it&#039;s progressive Democrats we&#039;re talking about, so we can&#039;t hold out much hope for it, but is it really too much to ask?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;apparently being &#8220;pro-choice&#8221; to a modern Democrat only applies to one particular medical procedure that is, even in the more glowing of terms for it, rather grisly business.</p>
<p>Nowhere in their formulation of being &#8220;pro-choice&#8221; supports the doctor&#8217;s right to choose in the least.</p>
<p>At the very least, can&#8217;t they at least be intellectually honest?  I know it&#8217;s progressive Democrats we&#8217;re talking about, so we can&#8217;t hold out much hope for it, but is it really too much to ask?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

