I was doing some bottom-of-the-workbag reading Thursday, and I read this in the July/August edition of the National Right to Life News:
"A spokeman for the Rules Committee chair, Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), said, "The starting point for Rep. Slaughter on the healthcare debate was protecting abortion rights."
Concerning this, a few observations (and I've had plenty of opportunity to observe Rep. Slaughter, since for many years I lived in her congressional district):
While the frank avowal of the primacy of abortion "rights" may shock some (and it ought to), it does not shock anyone who is familiar with Slaughter's years in the House. About the only distinguishing feature of her time in Congress has been her dedicated, absolutely fanatical advocacy for the totally unfettered right to kill one's baby. No limits on abortion at all. Ever! She's not known as Louise Slaughter-the-Unborn for nothing. I've often suspected that every child born into the world strikes Ms. Slaughterhouse as a lost opportunity.
One can't help but wonder what the abortion-funding-by-stealth forces in the Democratic Party thought when they read the quote I just cited. "Quiet, you fools! You're giving the game away!"
Normally, I object to any man or woman being referred to as "the chair". Most people, of course, are far smarter than a piece of furniture. In old Louise's case, however, I'm forced to consider the necessity of admitting that my theory may have at least one exception to its universal application...
Adult Stem Cells Treat Heart Disease in Clinical Trial
Mike Jones, 66, has shown marked improvement after participating in a clinical trial that used his own adult stem cells to treat congestive heart failure. Doctors from the University of Louisville (UofL) and Jewish Hospital harvested stem cells and then transplanted them back into Jones’s heart in an attempt to repair damaged tissue, according to a UofL press release.
“We’ve studied this in rats, mice and pigs but this is the first time we’ve tried it in a human,” said Roberto Bolli, director of UofL’s Institute for Molecular Cardiology. “If it works, it will be a revolutionary treatment for heart failure.”
The cells were transplanted July 17 into Jones’s bloodstream through his leg, and then traveled into his damaged heart. In only one week, his heart function rose from 20% to 30%, according to the press release.
Jones appeared with his doctors at a press conference July 24. He said that he is now exercising three times a day, and “I may even start jogging again.”
The clinical trial is expected to involve 20 patients over the next two years, testing for the safety and effectiveness of the procedure, according to the press release.
“We continue to enroll patients in this first-of-its-kind clinical trial,” Bolli said in a press release issued by Jewish Hospital. “We hope to help the heart regenerate its own tissue and improve heart function.”
You may be thinking that this is the kind of promising research that we should be funding if indeed the federal government should be funding any at all (that's for you, Tony). We were -- when the President was George Bush. However, Barack Obama, when he decided to loudly proclaim that the government would now fund embryonic stem cell research (which many object to on moral grounds, and many others point out has never produced any cures or treatments for any diseases, and very likely never will), he also quitely defunded research being conducted with adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells (both in plentiful supply and scientifically very promising), for no apparent reason other than the fact that President Bush funded it. I see a lot of juvenility in BO. At a time when we face dangers on all fronts, we appear to have a President who never outgrew the petulance of youth. He seems to be always determined to wipe out everything that his predecessor did -- especially the good things.
I'd rather we had elected Hillary (Boy, that wasn't easy to type.). At least she's a grown-up! Of course, so was Eva Peron.
I'm somewhat puzzled by the people asking why President BO and his lovely wife Imelda would travel to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC (unsuccessfully, as it happened) to give Chicago the chance to host the Olympic Games in 2016. Earth to the naive -- it was just another taxpayer-paid vacation for the King and Queen. I have read reports that Imelda even took a second jetliner for Her Royal Highness and her court. It was just another chance to blow another few hundred thousands of dollars of our taxes on themselves and their lavish lifestyles. It would be somewhat easier for me to take BO's "concern" for the working class seriously if he and his garishly-extravagant wife would stop blowing oceans of money they never earned on themselves.
When I came to the TownHall.com website the other day, I saw an ad at the side of the page that read "Help Pat Toomey beat Arlen Specter". Sounds good to me, was my first thought. What is he planning to beat him with?
Naughty Crab! You mustn't think things like that. Not out loud, anyway.
Very few modern politicians have taken more unjust abuse in recent years than President George W. Bush (oddly, the things he really did do wrong are almost never the things he's attacked for), but one of the few is GWB's own Vice President, Richard Cheney. For me, one of the great moments of the latest Bush presidency was when the Democrat viciously partisan attack dog, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), after years of venomous and mendacious attacks on virtually every Bush policy (real or imagined), had the gall to ask the Veep to pose with him for a photo that quite likely would have been used in Leahy's mailings back home. The website I'm blogging on won't allow me to quote the great Mr. Cheney's response exactly, so let's just say that he told Leahy to " go (rhymes with duck) yourself".
Now, how many of you Republicans reading this have never themselves wanted to say that to Leahy themselves? Boy, it got quiet in here all of a sudden...
One final thought for you all before I'm off to bed -- where is the public outcry against Roman Polanski on the part of the feminist groups? Do famous movie directors get even more leeway than Democratic presidents? Will this silence on the part of the NOW and other radical women's groups work to kill off whatever credibility they have left after their failure to condemn ol' Billy Jeff Clinton for his serial abuse of women in the '80s and '90s? Shouldn't it?