It’s not every day that I’m sympathetic to an abortion article in Mother Jones. Actually, today I’m not either; but I’m sure that how some will read my critique of the proposed South Dakota legislation that would make it legitimate to kill someone who is threatening the life of a fetus/unborn child. I’m all for pro-life legislation, but I think we pro-lifers have to be certain that it’s good legislation and strategically sound. In the case of South Dakota, I’m not convinced.

Mother Jones, incidentally, seems to be concerned that there’s not enough abortion in South Dakota. So much for “rare” in “safe, legal, and rare.”

You can read my entire piece here. By all means, leave comments on this blog and/or the column website. Feel free to disagree!

I may sound like a big lib to some conservatives, but I don’t care. I think it’s great that the First Lady issupporting breast feeding initiatives including a push to make workplaces more friendly for nursing moms.

Before someone starts condemning working moms, the reality is that many women have to work (especially the single moms who might otherwise have had abortions). One friend of mine actually had a child care provider who would bring the baby to her so that she could nurse. Obviously, an exceptional situation.

Moms who don’t work and nurse could also benefit, say if they’re want to visit their husband for lunch. Makes it much easier if there’s a comfortable place to nurse.

According to the same article linked to above, the IRS has announced that it will start giving tax breaks on nursing equipment/supplies and that flex spending accounts will cover these items, too.

These are two good initiatives that help to soften the drama that having a child is a huge production, only to be undertaken maybe 1.7 times, 2 times at most. They help to make having children seem like a normal, ordinary part of life. Hopefully we can all get behind that.

And for more in the win-win for mom/baby category, here’s astoryabout a mother who, against her doctors advice, chose to postpone intensive chemo treatments until her baby was born. Mom and baby are both doing well. As Carolyn Moynihan points out, it certainly makes you wonder about those stark “choices” that some doctors offer women in these situations.

Update (Feb. 16, 2011): I want to clarify that I’m not necessarily supportive of the legislative vehicle that the First Lady recommends, but I do think it’s a good initiative that deserves consideration.

Mark Steyn has a provocative piece highlighting the fact that despite being legal, abortion is hardly “safe.”

And at more than 1.2 million abortions a year, it is the most common surgical procedure. So much for “rare.”

Oh well, I guess it’s still “legal.”

As I mentioned in my previous post, the question of whether Live Action acted wrongly in attaining it’s videos of Planned Parenthood, is hardly settled.

Read more here.

So the recent Live Action investigation of Planned Parenthood is now coming under fire from committed pro-lifers.

It’s an interesting question – was the Live Action team wrong in its investigation because it lied to Planned Parenthood? Honestly, it’s not the first question that came to my mind. I was just glad that someone was doing the work of revealing PP. (I still think it’s appalling that the manager seemed like she’d talked with a pimp about prostituting young girls all the time. She never misses a beat.)

You can read more here at my post at CatholicVote.

So here’s the latest at Planned Parenthood and another well documented expose by Live Action. (You still can’t get mani/pedis or parenthood at PP, but you can get advice on how to traffic minor girls.) In this one, an office manager at PP not only offers to assist a pimp and a prostitute in getting STD treatment and abortion for the minor girls they “manage,” but she also gives them advice on how to run their business. When asked what the “girls” can do during the two weeks after an abortion when they can’t have vaginal intercourse, the manager promptly responds: “Waist up.” They can also be “that extra something that walks by.” You get the sense that she’s done this before and that she’s not repulsed by it all. She’s even got a handout ready for abortions on girls who are exceptionally young.

Planned Parenthood fired her. But their response was to go after the activists in a convoluted press statement.

“When Planned Parenthood learns of an operation that exploits young women, we vigilantly work with law enforcement authorities to uncover and stop this abhorrent activity,” said Stuart Schear, PPFA vice president for communications. “Planned Parenthood’s top priority is the health and safety of our patients and the health and well-being of women and teens across the country, and we have been in contact with federal and local authorities to identify the persons involved in these visits.”

Well, Planned Parenthood is one such organization. If they truly believe that Live Action is endangering the lives of women and girls and that their employee(s) is not, then why fire her?

This is not the first time that Planned Parenthood has been exposed. In addition to the numerous Live Action undercover investigations, Mark Krutcher recorded calls to over 800 PP clinics in which an actress pretended to be a 13-year-old impregnated by a 22-year-old. Consistently, the “girl” was told that she couldn’t tell PP the age of her boyfriend and she was further instructed as to how to schedule an abortion.

In every one of our 50 states, a 13-year-old having sex with a 22-year-old is a felony. It’s called statutory rape. If any adult becomes aware that this is taking place or has taken place, they are required to contact law enforcement. Ask any teacher, coach, pastor, etc. There’s nothing secret about their obligation to protect children and report to law enforcement.

It was specifically this aspect of the law that prompted Kansas DA Phil Kline to go after abortion clinics that had allegedly performed abortions on girls as young as 10-years-old.

We keep seeing the same story at Planned Parenthood: a willingness to break the law and to endanger the lives of young girls by maintaining silence in face of a abuse. It’s starting to sound like it might be time for a congressional oversight hearing, especially since Planned Parenthood gets almost $400 million in tax payer dollars.

Mom & Dad

We need Tiger Parents. I was somewhat amused to see the level of concern in reaction to Amy Chua’s Tiger Mom manual of parenting. I’m not a parent or a parenting expert and I don’t wholly agree with her approach, but she started a major debate that peaked with David Brooks calling her a wimp (I’m somewhat sympathetic to his argument.) and one of her daughters writing a letterin her defense:

The card was feeble, and I was busted. It took me 30 seconds; I didn’t even sharpen the pencil. That’s why, when you rejected it, I didn’t feel you were rejecting me. If I actually tried my best at something, you’d never throw it back in my face.

I was stunned to find only one comment noting the absence of Tiger Dad. As a prospective parent, I certainly don’t want the entire responsibility of raising my children alone. That’s one of the many benefits I saw in marriage: a partner in all things, including child rearing

Just as the Tiger Mom brawls are winding down, the President again bemoans the lack of quality education in this country. (In all fairness, he’s done a consistent job of noting the role of the parents, including, “Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done.”) And the Archdiocese of Los Angeles announced a move to an 11-month school year.

So now the conversation switches from Tiger Mom to the need for Tiger Schools. My question (and latest column): what about Tiger Parents? Data and anecdotal evidence confirm that parents are the determining factor in a child’s overall success. Yes, schools are important, but they’re not enough. We need parents.