MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine on MSNBC and CNN Today
from Charmaine’s PowerPoint at Princeton
Thanks to Joe Carter
for uploading Information is good.
Reason and science.
Our friends on the left would prefer less information when it confronts their…religion. Its two sacraments are:
And so Charmaine recently has braved to lecture liberals on abortion and evolution on CNN, MSNBC and Princeton University.
Alert Readers have noted that the Anderson Cooper 360 segment on CNN aired Wednesday night and will air again tonight, Friday, between 10 and midnite. Tivo and let us know.
What you think.
Her debate with Anderson Cooper was on the teaching of the theories of evolution and intelligent design in the classroom. Edu-crates do not care for I.D.
Charmaine will also be on MSNBC LIVE today Friday, 6 April. She will be debating for the wisdom of viewing a picture of your baby before you have an abortion.
Backstory, from The Times and Democrat
S.C. House approves bill requiring ultrasounds before abortions
By SEANNA ADCOX
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
COLUMBIA, S.C. – The South Carolina House gave key approval Wednesday to a bill that requires women seeking abortions in this state to first review ultrasound images of their fetus before the procedure.
If enacted, it would be the first law of its kind in the nation. Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in mandating women see the pictures.
It seems that liberals are most unhappy because 80% of women will stop their abortions after seeing a picture of their babies (in the womb). See the picture and the baby lives. Information can save a life.
Hit time is between 3:30 and 4pm Eastern Time.
Abortion and evolution. Today.
More from TandD
But should our state require that doctors and/or medical facilities show fetal images to a woman who is seeking an abortion?
For most women, seeking an abortion will be traumatic enough. Such decisions are not reached lightly. Should she be put under duress and forced to look at an image even if she chooses not to?
It was in 1992 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided states could regulate abortion as long as laws do not place an “undo burden” on the woman. The South Carolina law, which would be the first in the nation, could face a legal challenge.
And this week, S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster advised that the law as written is unconstitutional.
Trying to bring some common sense to the equation, Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto has argued that viewing the ultrasound should be voluntary.
Forcing women to view the image is impractical, he said. “Otherwise, what would you do – put people’s head in a harness? The right to refuse is pretty basic.”
Is it to be left to medical professionals to force a person to view an image they don’t want to see? And just how far are they to go in such a process?
And then there’s the matter of abortions being conducted because the health of the mother is at risk. How culpable is the state if the law makes the woman in such a case change her mind about abortion and ultimately lose her health or even life in the process?