What was it that accounts for the environment in which the "House of Horrors" that a Pennsylvania abortionist was running went virtually unregulated by the state in Philadelphia, where babies were routinely delivered alive and then killed?
Too much regulation. So says the nation's chief institutional death lobby, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
You can't make this stuff up.
HT: Verum Serum
Saturday, January 22, 2011
3 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
Martin, where on the page you link to or anywhere else does NARAL claim that too much regulation was to blame for the murders in Pennsylvania?
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference between regulations on the books and regulations being enforced. Why is NARAL to blame for the state not doing its job?
But of course, such distinctions matter little if you are on a crusade against the 'death lobby'.
I asked "What was it that accounts for the environment" in which the murders occurred. Read the post again.
ReplyDeleteSo are you defending this guy or what?
'So are you defending this guy or what?'
ReplyDeleteIf you mean the 'doctor' accused of murder - no, of course I am not.
I just really wish that if you are going to throw about words like 'baby killers' and 'death lobby' you at the very least make sure your accurations are backed up by the facts. In this case, you accuse NARAL of claiming that it was too much regulation that allowed this to happen (based on a statement they made before the case ever came to light no less) and then ridicula them for it, when in fact it wasn't too little regulation that allowed this to happen, it was the lacking enforcement of regulation that did. If you are going to criticize people with such incredibly strong language, at least have the basic decency of representing what they say and what the cause of an event is correctly, Martin.
Or is that too much to ask?