Alfonzo Rachel on MLK, Black Entertainment, Al Sharpton, Abortion
The Politics, Law, Morality, Debate "Sibling" of After Abortion blog
|3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S.||. . . 98 of these in Canada.|
|Free, financial help given to women and families in need.||More help given to women, families.|
|Helping with mortgage payments and more.||More help.|
|The $1,950 need has been met!||CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.|
|Help for those whose babies have||Down Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.|
|CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.|
"And although people ascribe many benefits to marijuana, including enhanced creativity and reduced pain and stress, it is well documented that its chief ingredient, cannabinol, activates dedicated cannabinol receptors in the brain and interferes profoundly with memory and with our ability to concentrate on several things at once. Wilson showed that the cognitive losses from multitasking are even greater than the cognitive losses from pot‑smoking."Also includes more bad news about so-called multi-tasking, and many people's addictions to their online "lives:"
- Neuroscience: The Observer, the UK's Guardian, January 18, 2015 article, "Why the modern world is bad for your brain," by Daniel J. Levitin, from his book, The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload, published by Viking.
"Each time we dispatch an email in one way or another, we feel a sense of accomplishment, and our brain gets a dollop of reward hormones telling us we accomplished something. Each time we check a Twitter feed or Facebook update, we encounter something novel and feel more connected socially (in a kind of weird, impersonal cyber way) and get another dollop of reward hormones. But remember, it is the dumb, novelty-seeking portion of the brain driving the limbic system that induces this feeling of pleasure, not the planning, scheduling, higher-level thought centres in the prefrontal cortex. Make no mistake: email-, Facebook- and Twitter-checking constitute a neural addiction."Makes me glad I've never done Facebook, Twitter or email-on-iPhone.
"The adverse effects of marijuana have been well documented, and studies have demonstrated the potential negative consequences of short- and long-term recreational use of marijuana in adolescents. These consequences include impaired shortterm memory and decreased concentration, attention span, and problem solving, which clearly interfere with learning. Alterations in motor control, coordination, judgment, reaction time, and tracking ability have also been documented; these may contribute to unintentional deaths and injuries among adolescents (especially those associated with motor vehicles if adolescents drive while intoxicated by marijuana). Negative health effects on lung function associated with smoking marijuana have also been documented, and studies linking marijuana use with higher rates of psychosis in patients with a predisposition to schizophrenia have recently been published, raising concerns about longer-term psychiatric effects. New research has also demonstrated that the adolescent brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex areas controlling judgment and decision-making, is not fully developed until the mid-20s, raising questions about how any substance use may affect the developing brain. Research has shown that the younger an adolescent begins using drugs, including marijuana, the more likely it is that drug dependence or addiction will develop in adulthood. A recent analysis of 4 large epidemiologic trials found that marijuana use during adolescence is associated with reductions in the odds of high school completion and degree attainment and increases in the use of other illicit drugs and suicide attempts in a dose-dependent fashion that suggests that marijuana use is causative."
"...real unemployment is not 5.5%, it is 11% including those people who have given up looking for work and are working part-time. Youth unemployment remains 18%, and it's part of a 40-year trajectory the American middle class continues to decline," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said about President Obama's State of the Union address [January 2016].
But this guy's does:
And so does this guy's:
My heart still goes out to Brown's relatives and friends. The sad fact, though, is that the evidence reviewed by Eric Holder, the FBI and the Justice Department has shown that Brown would be alive today if he hadn't tried to kill that police officer with his own gun.
Sadly, Michael Brown chose not to be an innocent victim. Nor was he, according to black police officer David Clarke from Wisconsin, anything at all like "Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr....[Brown was] not [an] icon in the civil rights movement."
Eric Holder's Justice Department has "concluded its federal investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and it has reached substantially the same conclusions as the local grand jury that chose not to press charges against police officer Darren Wilson." Also covered by the New York Times here: "an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges." From the Times story:
"Mr. Wilson told investigators that Mr. Brown had tussled with him through the window of his police car and tried to grab his gun, an account supported by bruises and DNA evidence...While some witnesses were adamant that Mr. Brown had his hands up, some recanted their stories. Mr. Wilson testified that Mr. Brown had charged at him, and other witnesses backed up his account.The Federalist writer makes a good point, because it is the not-guilty's lives that are at stake, be they white cops, black cops, or anyone:
"'I’m backpedaling pretty good because I know if he reaches me, he’ll kill me,' Mr. Wilson told a state grand jury, in testimony that investigators said was consistent with what he told the F.B.I. 'And he had started to lean forward as he got that close, like he was going to just tackle me, just go right through me.'
"The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year, the law enforcement officials said."
"...it’s clearly time to apologize—for every activist and journalist (but I repeat myself) who bought into the simplistic, self-serving “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative and broadcast it far and wide based on false testimony; who reflexively dismissed Wilson’s side of the story as preposterous and unbelievable; who doggedly upheld a wider narrative that slanders police officers across the country as murderous racists...Do it because if you want to hold others accountable for their action, you need to first make sure you are accountable for your own."This wouldn't have happened to Michael Brown if he had done as the officer told him, if he'd not tried to grab the cop's gun, if he'd not charged at the officer.
It wouldn't have happened to Jerame Reid, either, if he'd done as the black officer Braheme Days told him, stayed in the car and just showed him his hands out the window as the driver of the car did throughout this incident:
“We got a gun in this glove compartment.” Shortly after that, Days appears to reach into the vehicle and retrieve something from the glove compartment. As Worley radios for backup, Days issues a series of expletive-laced threats and commands to Reid. “You reach for something you’re going to be fucking dead,” Days warns. Someone in the car replies, “I got no reason to reach for nothing.” A moment later, Days says again, “Hey Jerome, you reach for something you’re going to be fucking dead.” Then seconds later: “He’s reaching, he’s reaching.”This link gives even more detail of the words spoken by Days and remarks, "The instant Days draws his weapon (0:58) he begins repeatedly shouting at Reid “show me your hands,” the repetition obviously indicating non-compliance. The driver of the suspect vehicle, Leroy Tuft, more prudently puts his empty hands and arms out the drivers side window. Tuft is immediately held at gunpoint by Officer Worley (whom, the trainer in me feels obliged to note, demonstrates excellent trigger finger discipline), while Days continues to verbally engage the persistently non-compliant Reid...A gun was recovered from the suspect car."
The New York Post summarized similarly: "Days screams over and over at the passenger, Jerame Reid, “Show me your hands!” and “If you reach for something, you’re going to be f—— dead!” The officer appears to reach into the car and remove the gun. But the brief standoff ends with Reid disregarding Days’ order to not move, stepping out and getting shot." They are also the only source so far to state the fact that Officer Days is black.
Yet the protests have begun already, and it's now a black officer who shot Reid who was getting out of the car when he'd been told not to move but to just "show me your hands!" The driver, Tuft, did just that, just as he was told, you can see it plain as day on all the videos, and he's alive and unshot today.
So what's Al Sharpton going to do with this one? What's the narrative of the protests going to be now? What's the catchphrase now? How many times does this happen before "Don’t you f*cking move!" gets listened to and obeyed, like the driver, but not the passenger, of this car in New Jersey did?
And before anyone concludes that I've never been in a serious confrontation with police so I can't possibly know how this feels, you're dead wrong about that. Waaaayyyy wrong. I've been there. And it does suck. But you shut your mouth, you "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" and do precisely as you're told. It is what it is, for white folk like me too.
I think erring on the side of empathy/sympathy for such victimized women should have been a foremost consideration, and so agree with delaying this bill to incorporate that exemption even if the rape/incest wasn't reported. To help protect women from any possible further harm is a no-brainer for me, and I think staunch conservatives should "get that." That they don't is a true sorrow.
Carly Fiorina makes a case that this delay was a mistake, but RealClearPolitics.com presents the argument that it may have made sense at this time and will likely come up again later, with the problem clause weeded out:
Recently a couple of Republican members brought concerns over the rape reporting provision to the attention of Ellmers, a co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the Republican women’s policy committee...The congresswoman from North Carolina has said that the language of the bill put lawmakers in danger of questioning a woman’s word, and that Republicans and Democrats need to show compassion for women in crisis situations.
“Women lawmakers aren’t doing this because they’re wanting to gain new voters in the party. The concerns are the reporting requirements and the effect that has on women,” a spokesperson for Ellmers told RCP. “Their concerns are, we don’t like this provision because it harms women.”
Critics argue that Ellmers’ timing is suspect. They point out she voted for the same bill in 2013 and could have led this charge at an earlier time (her aides say the rape provision was added in later during a vote on the rule). Some take issue with her argument that younger voters don’t care about social issues, pointing to polls that show a big majority support making late-term abortions illegal.
[S]aid one Republican strategist...“Supporting the abortion of a 5-month-old baby is well outside the mainstream. Hillary Clinton, who once claimed that abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare,’ would find herself on the fringes supporting late-term abortions.”
Aides say they want to bring the bill back up again once the language is changed, but it is unclear when that would take place.
From the UK's The Guardian:
Planned flogging of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi postponed again. Medical assessment shows Badawi – who received 50 lashings on 9 January – unfit to face punishmentAnd on January 16th, after the first postponement: The doctor concluded that the wounds from last week’s flogging had not yet healed properly and Badawi would be unable to withstand more.
And this astounding news from The Jewish Press:
Americans Offer to Take 100 Lashes Each for Saudi Blogger:Now that's what I call humanity speaking up for real human rights. God bless them.
Most of the members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom have volunteered to each take 100 lashes for Saudi blogger Raif Badawi.
Princeton professor Robert P. George explained the decision of the USCRIF group in an email to The Christian Post.
“Together with six colleagues on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, I sent a letter to the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. calling on the Saudi government to stop the horrific torture of Raif Badawi — an advocate of religious freedom and freedom of expression in the Saudi Kingdom,” wrote George, who is a vice-chair of the commission.
“If the Saudi government refuses, we each asked to take 100 of Mr. Badawi’s lashes so that we could suffer with him. The seven of us include Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, Christians, Jews, and a Muslim,” he added.
Offering to take Badawi’s lashes along with George are six other members of the USCIRF: Mary Ann Glendon, member of the Board, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Daniel I. Mark assistant professor, Department of Political Science, Villanova University; Hannah Rosenthal, CEO, Milwaukee Jewish Federation; Eric Schwartz, dean, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota and Katrina Lantos Swett, president of Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice.
Prof. Daniel Mark is an Orthodox Jew. Hannah Rosenthal was the U.S. Special Envoy and the head of Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism between 2009 and 2012. Katrina Lantos Swett, the chair of the USCIRF, is the daughter of the late Congressman Tom Lantos, who was a Holocaust survivor. Lantos Swett is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints.
OnTheIssues.com provides many links to quotes and voting records on abortion, going back a ways. That site also of course gives links to all the issues and quotes by the potential candidates. Some of those not actually listed on that page have links at the top of the page (Christie is an example).
Other good reference links include RealClearPolitics.com, with its running compilation of polls and "rankings."
BallotPedia.com is an excellent source "to learn more about a potential candidate's views on running, key states visited, fundraisers attended and campaign issues."
Here's a January 2015 candidate assessment from The Washington Examiner that's actually more reasoned and level-headed than I expect from that publication.
This is TheHill.com's Thanksgiving 2014 snapshot of 13 of the potential candidates.And BusinessInsider.com published this handicapping list September 2014.
This is not an exhaustive list of assessment articles, by any stretch. Just a first stab.
As a first pass (i.e., ignoring pro-life/abortion issue completely), those I'm taking seriously are former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (brilliant mind financially but has already taken himself out of Presidential contention), Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Secretary of State Condi Rice, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, neurosurgeon Ben Carson, among others.
Although several of them are more moderate on some issues than I'd like, there is something about each of them that resonates. I used to think that way about Christie, too, although his "brashness" I'd prefer to be more "toughness," a la Reagan.
I love New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and former Florida Congressman Allen West, and I like Carly Fiorina, but none of them for President, at least not yet.
Not so much Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (I like former congressman Artur Davis', a Democrat-turned-Republican, ideas better), Chris Christie (even if the Justice Department—"so far"—plus a state investigative committee "headed by partisan Democrats" have found no culpability in BridgeGate), Texas Senator Ted Cruz (seriously, he is no rockstar except of course in Texas and surely we don't need another perceived "rockstar" in the WH?), Mitt Romney (3rd time's not the charm; the ship has sailed), Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Lindsey Graham (much the same reasons: they're too much of the OLD in the G.O.P.)
Don't yet know much about Ohio Governor John Kasich, Texas Governor Rick Perry (not another Texas Governor?) or remember much about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
Several articles indicate that Jeb Bush might be the right one. The Wall Street Journal cites as one compelling reason, the fact that he is "heir to a vaunted network of Republican contributors built over his family’s two presidencies, his own governorship and other campaigns. It is one of the most formidable assets in GOP politics..." The New York Daily News said that "A Jeb Bush-Rob Portman ticket could be the worst-case scenario for a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, a close Clinton adviser [Harold Ickes] said Friday."
And as Carl Hiassen of The Miami Herald wrote, speaking to Hillary,
"You can't really slam him just for being another Bush without getting slammed yourself for just being another Clinton. The fact that Bill is dear friends with Jeb's dad, the elder George, also complicates that formula. Nor can you slop any blame on Jeb for invading Iraq because that was his brother's call--and you voted for it yourself as a Senator. You totally fell for all that crap about weapons of mass destruction. So scratch Bush fatigue off the list of campaign issues. Ditto for Iraq."A Naples Daily News (Florida) article quoted local politicians who had worked with Jeb Bush, as saying
"He's one of those few people who runs for office who has both the intellectual ability to figure things out, but also the emotional and the people skills to hold together a lot of factions that are really tough to hold together."Last March, The Washington Post ran this quote, "'Jeb has the capacity to bring the party together,' said Fred Malek, a top Republican official who said he has been in regular contact with Bush."
State Sen. Garrett Richter and former Rep. Dudley Goodlette also said they are 100 percent in the Bush camp. "I know Jeb to be a person of principle. I know Jeb to be a leader. And I know Jeb to have a strong interest in and acumen for policy," said Goodlette, who served eight years in the Florida House during Bush’s governorship. "I really believe that’s what this country needs."
The International Business Times writes how Rubio won't run if Jeb Bush does, for sound reasons present and future.
Like it or not, both parties have their uber-rich, enormously influential money donors. The Democrats have George Soros at the top of their heap. The Republicans have the Koch Brothers at the top of theirs. Same song, just two verses. And like it or not, it is a prerequisite for running for President of the United States.
I am not sure I was at first keen on another Bush, though the first two were in many ways unlike each other. Several articles have indicated Jeb is even more unlike them, more moderate (not necessarily to my taste), but for the sake of argument, for now, let's look at what it might be if he would be a good enough leader to put him there.
What I'd love to see is them all getting together, even if by teleconference, and hashing out a scenario where realism about winning the Presidency--about trying to really fix what's been turned wrong about this country--takes the utmost precedence. I'd love to see the best of the best of them recruited into a powerful team, to create the most potently smart and effective White House Cabinet, perhaps ever.
Imagine the nationwide sound of jaws dropping you'd hear for this:President: Jeb Bush Vice President: Susana Martinez
Almost everyone's favorite horse is there, in the White House, making the difference for all Americans, where they can best do so.
Imagine that: Five or six women. Three people of Hispanic descent. Three, possibly four African-Americans. Four persons born of immigrant parents (two Indian, two Cuban).
Naïve? Simplistic? Too many big egos wouldn't settle for cabinet posts? Perhaps. But I believe it would prove the Republicans are truly serious about getting progress done, this time.
I can see the mainstream media stunned into silence over that line-up. Even they would have to admit it was impressive to get all those big dogs, working on the same team, at that highest level of our national government.
So, Republican contenders, what do you say? Give this country a real Dream Team, and let's stop just talking about righting the ship, and get to work.
So Much for "My Body, My Choice"We all know, deep down in our hearts, minds or both, that this is what Planned Parenthood and all pro-choice folks would be doing if it was about abortion.
The state of Connecticut has removed a 17 year old girl (known as Cassandra C.) from her parents and is forcing her to receive chemotherapy, according to news reports.
Oddly, no women's rights adovcates are expressing concern that the state is telling this minor what to do with her body.
Cuomo claimed that day he shared the pro-life goal of moving America towards an end to abortion. But his speech — and his years in politics — did the opposite.Guess it's a good thing I don't live in New York anymore, if that governor thinks I'm "extreme" for supporting the right to life for all.
Cuomo’s Notre Dame argument became a pillar of the Democratic Party. Catholic Democrats pointed to Cuomo in declaring themselves “personally opposed to abortion,” but politically pro-choice. The governor had written a blank check for politicians to don the mantle of the Church, but ignore its hard and fast teachings.
With that blank check in hand, Cuomo’s party became extreme on abortion. Pro-life speakers were effectively banned from the podium at Democratic Conventions. The current Democratic President raised money off his defense of partial birth abortion, and opposed state laws to protect children who survive abortion attempts. The abortion lobby is at the heart of the Democratic fundraising apparatus.
And on other Catholic teachings, Cuomo’s party has no use anymore for tolerance, now trying to force nuns to provide contraception coverage, and curb the free exercise of religion when it clashes with elite sexual morality.
Read Cuomo’s speech closely, and you see the seeds of this intolerance — this compulsion cloaked in the rhetoric of pluralism. Cuomo in 1984 wasn’t merely defending legal abortion — he was defending taxpayer-funded abortion. The political issue on his plate in Albany wasn’t an abortion ban, it was abortion coverage under Medicaid.
In Catholic terms, the policy decision to spend taxpayers' money on abortions is “formal cooperation in evil.” Forcing people to do so against their will is hardly “help[ing] create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom,” as Cuomo said a good statesman should do in a pluralistic society.
In 2014, his son, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared that “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life… have no place in the state of New York.”
While flanked by four flag-draped caskets, Clinton blamed an "awful internet video that we had nothing to do with" for the "rage and violence directed at American embassies." Clinton did not, in the course of her speech, defend the right to free speech.Come on, Hillary. We're waiting for your answers. Still.
What's worse, Clinton privately told the father of one of the CIA officers killed in Benghazi: "We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." By the end of the month, an American citizen known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who made the anti-Islam YouTube video, was indeed arrested for violating the terms of his probation. He was later sentenced to a year in jail for using a name other than his given legal name.
A number of questions remain for Hillary Clinton: Does she dispute the claim that she said she would "make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted"? How did she know on September 14 that the American who made the film was going to be arrested? And does Clinton see any difference between the blasphemous Charlie Hebdo cartoons and the blasphemous anti-Islam YouTube video?
"Free speech comes with responsibilities:Assumption? Judging by some coverage, by whom? CNN, and other liberal-minded media like it? Has Ms. Kohn heard Bill Maher lately? She broadbrushes the whole radical-Islamist-wary world as not respecting Islam, then implies that radical-Islamists deserve our respect and support so they won't kill people.
"Sadly, I have to wonder if Charlie Hebdo had been attacked for cartoons insulting Christians, whether there would be a similar outpouring in support of the magazine, especially in the United States. After all, many of the same people outraged just a month ago about the alleged "War on Christmas" have no qualms about launching a "War on Islam" because, well, it's not their religion being mischaracterized and insulted. It unsettles me to think that the reason so much of the outpouring of support for Charlie Hebdo is driven not just by the violence suffered or a defense of free speech, but by the opportunity to implicitly support jabs at Islam. But judging by some of the coverage, it seems a fair assumption to make."
Kohn continues assuming: "Unfortunately, about 60 percent of Americans don't know a single Muslim, and so may only know about Islam what the media reports about terrorists."
I know and have worked with a few Muslims. I also know and have worked with a few Middle Eastern Christians with family or ancestors from Muslim countries, who say they are here in the United States for the very reason of preserving their own lives and those of their families.
I have to wonder if Ms. Kohn herself knows a single, true Christian. And thankfully, many of us know how to get complete, unbiased news (hint: it isn't from CNN and company).
But this is the crux of the matter:
"There is no inconsistency between supporting free speech for Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists and finding the content of some of their cartoons offensive and disrespectful...while the principle of free speech means I can say what I want whenever I want it, in practice I try to think carefully about the impact of my words -- and how they might be felt among others whether or not they share my belief system...I want to help Islam and Christianity and Judaism and society in general become more open and inclusive and democratic and liberated. Free speech is fundamentally essential to that project. So is respect."Respect? You want to help Christianity and Judaism too?
Ms. Kohn, since you mention the word "inconsistency," where was your, CNN's or any mainstream news media's respect-giving, responsibility-lecturing, sympathetic-toward-Christians piece when this, this, or this "free expression" hit the news?
That's what I thought:
This is CNN's, HuffPo, et.al.'s reality, in fact:
Associated Press at least admitted, albeit only after pressure, their part in the hypocrisy: they censored the Charlie Habdo cartoons so as not to offend, but were still posting the decades-old Andrew Serrano "Piss Christ" photo, at least until Jan. 8th. Huffington Post has gleefully reported on those "disrespectful," "irresponsible" offenses to Christianity, using phrases like "There's nothing more entertaining than when a controversial cultural relic resurfaces to incite anger all over again." HuffPo and others thought it was fun to have "riled devout Catholics and grumpy fiscal conservatives."
Talk about double-standards: HuffPo earnestly lets a liberal blogger at Gawk speak for them when they quote him labeling AP "cowardly" for taking down the "Piss Christ" images, but just one day before, gave CNN an insult-free pass when CNN censored the Hebdo cartoons: "CNN has also chosen not to show any Charlie Hebdo cartoons that could offend Muslims. In a memo sent to staff Wednesday afternoon, CNN senior editorial director Richard Griffiths encouraged reporters to instead 'verbally describe the cartoons in detail,' a separate Politico report notes."
The hypocrisy, right there, in black and white.
I don't want insults or disrespect toward Islam. I also don't want Islam, or anyone, insulting or targeting me or anyone due to my faith. That playing field has never been level, however, and that's what should be objected to.
Christians are brushed aside, name-called "grumpy" and get no mainstream news support, respect or responsibility. The reason? "Riled devout Catholics" didn't kill anyone over it.
If they had, they would neither be "devout" nor "Catholic."
This isn't about respect or responsibility. This is about FEAR.
The censoring media doesn't believe what they're now saying about respect and responsibility because it's the right, moral thing to do. Had that been true, they would have written similar articles supporting Christianity when these offenses were first news and now that some were back in recent news.
No, their spots haven't changed. They're just drenched in the sweat of fear.
CNN, the New York Times, HuffPo, most if not all of them (you can DYOR as well as I) have just proved: You don't get respect or responsibility from CNN and its ilk unless you kill someone over not getting respect.
NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07
Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend
San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage
Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006
NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave
"After Abortion,...run by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006
"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005
Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series
Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice
COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
PREGNANT? UPSET? SCARED?
4,800 confidential groups helping now.