In response to:

RNC Chief: Did the Media Miss Planned Parenthood's Endorsement of Infanticide?

PurpleStateBlueVote Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:28 PM
AmyDB Wrote: 3 minutes ago (11:20 PM) Then why didn't Snow just say something along the lines of "The woman & her medical provider should take all actions required by law" then no one would be bytching now. But no she had to try & tapdance around the whole thing. Also PSBV there was no gestational age discussed so no solid finding can be made on what she meant age wise. She didn't because she knew she was on the record and she wasn't going to say anything that could be used against her later. Judging by how Priebus is complaining, she succeeded. The difference between her and Akin, the very example brought up by Guy, is that, by evading, she avoided saying something monumentally stupid and easy to turn into a soundbite, while he didn't.
PurpleStateBlueVote Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:32 PM
As for no discussion of gestational age - neither side is interested in that at the moment. Like it or not, your side would have to make the first move. Your side has adopted the very successful tactic of curbing abortion in bits in pieces and no one on my side will offer another piece to your side. Not until your side makes it clear that the ultimate goal is to prevent abortion of fetuses past a certain gestational age, not abortion in all cases (the platform of the Republican party, lest you forget). There wouldn't even be a problem with making that gestational age cutoff very low. But the offer by your side has to be in good faith.
AliveInHim Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:43 PM
What could possibly justify tearing an unborn child to pieces?

His father is a criminal? His mother's an irresponsible twit?

Not one of us asked to be born. Not one. Some of us had it pretty rough growing up, but here we are, better off than we were and damn grateful to be alive.
AliveInHim Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:32 PM
So what you're saying is that in committing to save the baby's life, she would have compromised PP's sworn mission?

PurpleStateBlueVote Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:35 PM
You're welcome to interpret it however you want. The bottom line is PP will continue to get Federal funding, while Priebus can stomp his feet all he wants, and this will remain a non-story.
AliveInHim Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 11:38 PM
There IS no other way to interpret "...leave the decision to the woman and her doctor...'.

A decision means a choice must be made. In this case, it's to either 1) save the baby or 2) kill the baby. What is PP's sworn mission, again...?

Anyone with a conscience wouldn't hesitate to choose Door Number One.

An insidious form of media bias stems from what our press decides isn't worthy of coverage.  In a column at Red State, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus decries American journalism's relative silence on the stunning testimony of a Planned Parenthood official in Florida last week.  Asked if a child who survived an attempted abortion has a right not to be killed post-birth, Alisa Lapolt Snow repeatedly invoked a mother's right to choose, declining to state whether the newborn should be protected under law.  Here's her ghoulish exchange with lawmakers: