"HOW LONG A MINUTE IS DEPENDS ON WHAT SIDE OF THE BATHROOM DOOR YOU'RE ON"

Just like boys like to have bathroom reading material in their bathrooms at home--Schroeder Hall bathrooms to display posters and announcements for safe sex, drinking, drugs, etc.  Today, I found a poster that said, "Protest the Protest".  As I read further, a student has created these posters in order to gather people to protest against an organization called "Life Chain".

Life Chain is one of the largest pro-life organizations which is coming to the ISU campus on October 3, 2010.  According to Wikipedia, "every first Sunday of October, Life Chain invites various churches and congregations across the United States to stand on designated sidewalks to pray and rally for one hour".  

So, the student who created these posters tries to capture readers by saying, "If they outlaw this choice, what's next?"  It almost seems like this student who is organizing a "Pro-Choice Protest" is associating protests with changing the law.  Grassroot protesters, such as this student's call to action, assume that by delivering knowledge on an issue to the public or displaying opposition to a law will allow them to bring about changes in policies or laws.  I'm as patriotic as they come, but I don't believe that laws can be changed from the grassroots.  In their defense, grassroot efforts have the potential to pick up media attention which could reach a larger population of people.  Politicians may show some compassion for grassroot groups and may support them, but it's usually just a ploy--bottom line is:  They want your votes.

I don't think grassroots are unimportant or a waste of time, but the only way for these types of groups to survive is by numbers and ultimately the character of the public's opinion on the issue.  

What do you think?  Do you believe that protests such as the one that this ISU student is organizing in opposition to National Life Chain Day (October 3, 2010) are able to create some kind of change?  What level of change?  Is it substantial enough to force politicians to change abortion laws?  Do you think that the posters are appropriate for this campus? 

"I'VE NOTICED THAT EVERYONE THAT IS FOR ABORTION HAS ALREADY BEEN BORN" ~RONALD REAGAN

There are many different types of abortion, which I hope to cover throughout the semester.  The one that probably sparks the most responses is a late-term abortion.  I did a little research on late-term abortions, and just wanted to share with you all.  According to information from the Michigan Christians for Life, late-term abortions require doctors to perform "instillation techniques" in which a needle filled with poison is inserted into the baby.  There are different types of poisons and incision sites used, but one mentioned caught my attention immediately.  Intracardiac injections are mentioned by the Michigan Christians for Life, which, "...involves injecting a poison--such as digoxin--into the unborn baby's heart".  A well-known late-term abortionist named George Tiller uses this technique.  The website exposes a known case of Tiller's where he had injected poison into the brain, instead of the heart.  The baby ended up surviving with severe brain damage, and was adopted by a couple, Bill and Mary Kay Brown, and named her Sarah.  Sarah died 5 years after being born from the complications.   

The strength of such a family to adopt Sarah is remarkable and goes without question--a noble act.  An article titled, "The Story of Sarah Brown", offers more background to Sarah's story.  Twenty-four hours after the failed attempt, "...she had not been cleaned up, the umbilical cord had been improperly severed and she had had no nourishment, Sarah continued to live.  A nurse in the newborn unit of the hospital finally took pity on the child.  She called an attorney with whom she was familiar and explained the situation.  The attorney called Bill and Mary Kay Brown and asked them to come to the hospital and rescue this remarkable child".  I think it is safe to say that if Sarah had received proper treatment and proper nourishment, her brain injuries would have been greatly reduced. 

Pictured below is a woman named Gianna Jessen, who survived a late-term abortion 33 years ago.  

Source:  http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2008/06/14/abortion-survivor-will-not-support-obama/

Gianna is active in the creation of a group called "BornAliveTruth" in partner with a nurse named Jill Stanek.  You may have heard of her.  A political article that I came across when searching for Gianna's story called, "Ad With Late-Term Abortion Survivor Bashes Barack Obama on Infanticide", reported Stanek to be responsible for exposing live-birth abortions, where "doctors purposefully cause the premature birth of an unborn child for the sole purpose of letting her die".  This led to, "...a national law President Bush signed requiring medical centers and personnel to provide such babies with adequate medical care after birth," and, "...the Illinois bills Obama opposed".

The article claims that Obama has voted down the"Born Alive Bill" four times, which calls for actions to protect babies left to die after an abortion.  The article states that: 

Obama has said he voted against the Born Alive bill in Illinois because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade and the so-called right to abortion, but documents from the Illinois legislature show he voted for an amendment to rectify that issue and still voted against the bill.

Mind you, this article is from 2008 in the heat of the election. I do not know if he has opposed the bill since, but BornAliveTruth.Org launched an ad that made the public aware of Obama's opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  You can click here to see Gianna's message to Obama.  

So as to relate to my previous post which focuses on two polls about whether or not abortion is murder, is poisoning a baby's heart or brain considered murder?  What's your opinion?

MURDER SHE WROTE...

I find it really interesting how pollsters can manipulate wording within a question to provoke a certain response.  I think of this technique more as a skill.  As I have mentioned previously, I am going to law school next year, and I believe that being able to analyze and spot manipulative words will help me when I need to infer about something indirectly.  Below are two polls that ask the same question (in essence).  

In "Polling the Nations: Abortion: General", a poll is constructed in a True or False format to the statement:

Poll #1

Abortion is murder:  True or False?

 At the same time, another poll (which you can view here) is constructed as well in the same format, except the statement is altered to say:

 Poll #2

Abortion is not murder:  True or False?

The same company, YouGov Polimetrix, conducted both polls the exact same day.  Both used the Internet to host the poll as well as the same sample size of 1,000.  With matching data for the date of poll, sample size, host, and pollster, it is easy to assume that this poll was conducted at the same time as the other.  However, we should not assume anything.  So we are going to treat the two polls as separate entities.  

So it is obvious that the keyword "not" is inserted into the statement in Poll #2.  Let's observe the results to try and see if the keyword influences anything.

Both polls hold very bold statements about whether or not "Abortion IS murder".  There are no circumstances offered.  And I think it is important to note that the responses do not represent the percentage of people who hold a certain belief on the legality of abortion.  For example,  in Poll #2, 33% responded "True" to the statement "Abortion is not murder"--This does not mean that those respondents who chose to answer True believe that abortion should be legal.  In society, the term "murder" is generally used in negative contexts.  So it may be easy to suspect that people who do not see abortion as being associated with a negative context also view abortion to be legal.  Some people can believe that abortion is not murder, but still don't think it is morally right to make it legal.  Ultimately, we do not know what the sample believes on the legalities of the issue.  And it should not be confused with what the poll is really asking.

Generally, in my opinion, pro-lifers tend to argue that abortion is literally killing a human being--and for lack of a better word--murder.  To me, I believe that most people would consider a late-term abortion to be murder.  I have no data to support this, but I think most of society is against late-term abortions.  States are given the right to restrict late term abortions.  I'm going to post later about late-term abortions.  But, what do you think?  Considering that pregnancies usually average about 36 weeks, if you or someone you knew decided to have an abortion at 35 weeks and 6 days, would that be murder?  What does that one more day mean to you?

PAPA DON'T PREACH...I'M KEEPIN' MY BABY. Ooh Ooh!

Aside from Kelly Osbourne's tragic remake of "Papa Don't Preach," the question of informing your parents of your decision to keep or abort a child is probably not as easy as singing it to your parents with funky hair and teenage angst.  But, a lot of people like to argue about whether or not parents of teenagers (under the age of 18 years old) should be required to inform their parents if they choose to get an abortion.  This can cause a lot of controversy.  Let's take a look at this poll's results I found from "Polling the Nation: Abortion: Parental Consent" which asked respondents in California in March of 2010 the question:  

Would you favor or oppose a state law requiring parental notification by the physician before a woman under age 18 can get an abortion? 

The results indicated the following:

Favor                                 68%

Oppose                               29%

Don't Know                          3%

What is interesting is a few notes about the actual poll design itself.  The sample size was 2,002 people which were contacted by land line phone and cell phone.  We all pretty much know that teenagers do not usually own land line phones, but this alone would leave me to the assumption that it is not the teenagers under the age of 18 answering the phones when the interviewers call to ask questions.  It seems more likely that the parent of the house would be the respondents in this poll.  HOWEVER,  I am assuming here that the interviewers targeted houses with teenagers and parents living inside them.  Even if they didn't do this, it would seem likely because we know that usually older people (older than college age students) have land lines (they could potentially be parents themselves), which may be why so many favor knowing that their child is having an abortion.  But, keep in mind that the poll does say that cell phones were used as well, so this changes a lot of my assumptions.  We still don't know how many voters were from land line calls and how many were from cell phones.

Another interesting component of this poll is that the pollsters included an answer category of "don't know".  This relates to what we talked about in class.  While it seems hard to figure that people don't know what abortion is or any issues relating to it, due to its saliency, this option creates a safeguard to the poll's potential to contain nonattitudes. 

Now let's analyze.  By more of the population in this poll favoring a state law that requires doctors to inform parents of their teenage daughters' abortion implicates something that is camouflaged.  By making this state law, society is laying a responsibility onto doctors to inform the parents.  What if the doctor forgets before the date of the operation?  Could he or she be sued by the child's parents?  Does a doctor have to inform the parents if the child asked for Plan B--another "type" of Abortion (which I will get into at a later time)? 

I think one factor that may encourage a doctor to inform the parents regardless of if this was put into law or not is the level of maturity the child exhibits to the doctor.  If a 12 year old girl with pig tails and a lollipop walks into the doctor's office and demands an abortion--I think the doctor would want to tell the parents what the child is asking for (And potentially ask "Where are your parenting skills?").  But, in the case of a 17 year old, who is only 1 year away from being at the legal age of "maturity" (in the eyes of the law), may be very mature and researched her options and decided that abortion was the best one.  It's a tough call because doctors can't make exceptions or even create your own implications to the law (if it were passed).

Overall, visiting your primary practitioner when you are growing up is always awkward because of all the changes that your body goes through as you mature.  I can't imagine the response the doctor would receive on the other line when he tells the parents that their 12 year old is pregnant and wants an abortion.  In the utmost optimism, parents should have a general concern for what happens to their children and they should have their best interests at heart.  An abortion is a major decision and a surgery that I believe a child shouldn't undergo alone or without the consent of the parents (as long as the child is legally a "dependent" of the parents).  From my experience with surgeries from sport injuries, you always have to have an emergency contact written down in case things go wrong.  I wonder how that works if a child doesn't want their parents to know. 

Ultimately, Papa is going to preach regardless when he is informed by a doctor, or told by his own child.   

SIDE NOTE:  I really don't want to talk about the HIPAA Act much because a large portion of its details follow adults and not children.  There are some specifications, but for the most part they are irrelevant. 

Kelly Osbourne's Baby

Source:  http://thegirlfromtheghetto.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/baby1.jpg?w=450&h=347

TRADITIONAL CREPES ARE BACK ON THE MENU...

My family in New Zealand can make an AMAZING crepe dish.  It's very traditional and homemade with sugar and lemon.  These days you've got everyone thinking they are the next Top Chef, who shy away from traditional variations of foods in order to be more modern.  I can't believe the crappy Betty Crocker pancakes that American restaurants try to pawn off as a crepe.  I'd fly to New Zealand just for a crepe, but anyways...The Gallup website has an article posted called, "Renewed Desire for U.S. Gov't to Promote Traditional Values"which shocked me with the results.  Let's take a look at the first Gallup poll given:

  Source:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123326/Renewed-Desire-Gov-Promote-Traditional-Values.aspx

Gallup says that prior to 1993, the public was more in favor of NOT favoring any values, but since 1993 to 2004.  As you can see in the graph above, the difference in people for want to PROMOTE TRADITIONAL VALUES compared to the people who are NOT IN FAVOR OF VALUES is relatively a big gap.  At most, in 1999, there was a 19% difference in opinion.  It should be noted that although after 2005 the difference in opinion had become more level and even with each other (look right before 2009--Americans were torn), the opinion that is consistently more favored is having the government return to promoting traditional values.  I think it's important to show that:

The poll does not define what the term "traditional values" means; thus, respondents answer in light of their understanding of the term. The results by party and ideology discussed here suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican Party. 

Source:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123326/Renewed-Desire-Gov-Promote-Traditional-Values.aspx

 What does traditional mean to you?  For me, I think a huge portion of traditional values stems from the family and it's structure.  In my opinion, when things are going good with your family, we credit ourselves for practicing and upholding the family ideal.  We forget all the conflicts and times where the family was anything but the normal family.  However, when things are going badly within the family, that is when we start on a studious search for the dysfunctional elements in our life and blame our problems on them, not ourselves.  What do you think?

Another interesting point that Gallup brings up that some may overlook is the response to the poll in 2001 which was taken in October (just after the September 11 attacks).  The highest peak came at that time in favoring the government at 59% to promote traditional values.  That is quite a large number--almost 60% wanted traditional values promoted.  Gallup quickly points out that this was a time when the American people had a "heightened trust" with our government.  Some could say "Pshhh" to it now, especially those who opposed the Patriot Act, and other actions of our government that liberals believe were distrustful.  BUT, at the time of the attack, our country looked to our government to figure out all the how and why questions.  We looked to our government to protect our soil from that ever happening again.  I remember when people were being interviewed and asked to give their opinion about the Patriot Act and the government being able to tap into their phone lines to find terrorists.  Many believed that it was okay, because they were trying to find Whodunit.  Now people think it was a bad game of Clue.  

The recent numbers still indicate an 11% difference in opinion and a favor in promoting traditional values within our government.  So, next time you order crepes...=)

YOUR BABY PROBABLY HAS A BEATING HEART, YOU KNOW. IT CAN FEEL PAIN...AND IT HAS FINGERNAILS!

I'm sure most of you have seen the movie Juno.  There is a scene in the movie that had critics talking.  When the main character Juno goes to an abortion clinic, she encounters a classmate who is protesting outside.  She yells out to Juno,"Your baby probably has a beating heart, you know.  It can feel pain...and it has fingernails!"  I think this is the part where she decides not to get an abortion.  She can't get over the fact that it has fingernails already; as if having fingernails makes the baby an actual, real living being.  


A neighbor of mine came over to my house earlier in the summer when my boyfriend and I were grilling out.  She told us she was pregnant.  So, the natural thing to do is to say "Congratulations!"  She said, "Yeah, well I'm getting rid of it on Thursday".  I was already in shock that someone seemed so careless when talking about aborting a baby, but what she did next pulled on my heart strings like never before.  She pulled out a pack of cigarettes and cracked open a beer.  All I could do was stare at her.  I was speechless.  In the 30 minutes she sat outside with us, she had smoked TWO packs of cigarettes and drank FOUR beers!  


It made me wonder if telling her that the baby had fingernails would have stopped her from smoking and drinking.  Some people may say, "Oh well, she was getting rid of it anyway", but I just didn't think it was right.  There is still a baby inside of you.  You are poisoning it!  So I found this article called, "Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth" and it explains when everything starts to develop inside a fetus.  It says:

"Week 6:  Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming"

BUT, look at the rest of the information before Week 6.  On DAY 22, "heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'".  You're bound to pass Day 22 before you even realize that you're pregnant, but yet your baby has a heart!  So, maybe YOU should have a heart when it comes to doing things that you know you are not suppose to do.   

Pictured here:  A real hand with fingernails from an aborted fetus at 12 weeks.

Source:  http://www.40daysforlife.com/napa/pictures/Embryo%2012%20weeks%20fingernails%202.jpg

I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH YOU, I'M IN LOVE WITH ABORTION!

Before, we start in on some Gallup poll information, I wanted to show you WHY I titled this blog "She's Addicted to Abortions?"  Just like any good girlfriend does, I will sit through an episode of "South Park" with my boyfriend (It goes both ways...Don't worry!  I make him sit through Real Housewives of New Jersey).  I saw an episode called, "W.T.F." where the boys become Wrestling Legends (in their own minds) and put on a show.  Relax and enjoy the show!

Eric Cartman: Addicted to Abortions Video Clip

Let's begin with our first Gallup poll to discuss.

SOURCE:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

This poll is interesting because it relates to the story about my friend who was raped in my first post.  It shows that within this year, 54% of the polled total believe abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances.  A few examples of "certain circumstances" include if the woman was raped, in a incestuous relationship, or her life was in danger of having the child.  It is important to point out the people who take an affirmed stance in the question:  the ones who say it is legal under any circumstances and those who say it is illegal under any circumstances.  Although "legal under any circumstances" accounts for 24% of the vote, you can clearly see the "close split" that evolves around the issue of abortion--the people who chose "illegal in any circumstance" account for 19% polled.  You can see a closeness throughout the graph between those 2 choices.  I think that people feel comfortable in choosing an option that has "gray" areas rather than "black and white".

The only spike between the 2 "black and white" responses occurs around the range of when Bill Clinton was in office.  Voters polled were in favor of abortions being legal under any circumstances by more than 21% over "illegal in any circumstances" voters.  I found a pretty neat article, "Abortion Timeline", which chronicles political events involving abortion in the United States.  It says that in January 1993: 

President Clinton reverses years of pro-life progress by issuing five executive orders reversing Title 10 regulations banning abortion referral by federal employees, repealing the Mexico City Policy restricting federal funding of international organizations that work to reverse countries' abortion laws, negating the ban on funding for fetal tissue transplants, ordering military hospitals to perform abortions, and asking the FDA to "review" the import ban on RU 486. 

SOURCE:  http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortiontimeline.html

My prediction tells me that because President Clinton was a popular President, he led the public to be more in favor of legalizing abortions under any circumstances.  His public policies advanced the opportunities for Americans to have a legal abortion.  The highlighted section where Bill orders military hospitals to perform abortions seems to stick out to me.