Google capitulated to the highly profitable abortion industry this week and agreed to demands that the search engine ban “deceptive” ads posted by crisis pregnancy centers seeking to educate women about choices other than ending the lives of their unborn children. Praising Google’s decision Ilyse Hogue, president of the pro-abortion lobby NARAL, gushed “Google’s leadership in removing the majority of these ads is a victory for truth in advertising and for the women who have been targeted by a deliberate misinformation campaign by crisis pregnancy centers. We will continue to work with Google to ensure that their commitment results in women being directed to the resources and services they are seeking when they search online, ending this manipulation of women making vital health decisions.”
Google, of course, has every right to establish and enforce rules for advertising on its search engine. It’s not unfair of the company to insist on “relevance, clarity and accuracy.”
So, just how deceptive are the offending ads? Judge for yourself. Here is a list of the most egregious violations of Google’s “strict guidelines” as identified by the aggrieved NARAL:
These ads are clearly not for abortion clinics, which is the search term Googled in the examples. The copy within each ad, however, does suggest that you will not be taken to an abortion clinic’s website if you click. And one could argue that the ads do lead to sites that discuss abortion clinics, but let’s concede for the sake of argument that the ads themselves are deceptive in that they do not advertise abortion clinics. So, then, case closed, right? Not quite.
And when you click the ad you’ll be taken to a website that offers “a family of non-surgical adult stem cell and blood platelet treatments for common injuries and degenerative joint conditions…” (emphasis mine). Clearly, not a company offering knee surgery. Well, you might say, that’s just more proof that Google needs to do a better job policing its own policy. Perhaps that might fly if there were only a few violations here and there. But what if the search engine routinely allows deceptive ads? And what if many of those ads are for abortion clinics and are triggered to launch when someone Googles “abortion alternatives” or “crisis pregnancy center” and other related terms?
The following examples suggest a very selective enforcement of Google’s allegedly rigorous policy…
- A paid ad in the #1 position for “Gentle Abortion” from American Women’s Services. As you navigate the site you’ll finally encounter the term “risk” when you click on the “Gynecological Services” tab and learn that the Morning-After Pill “taken up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse…has been proven to reduce the risk of pregnancy up to 89% of the time” (emphasis mine).
- A paid ad for Washington Surgi-Clinic, whose website’s only mention of risk is “warm, courteous professionals counsel each patient extensively on the benefits, risks, and alternatives of the procedure.”
- A Tidewater Women’s Health Clinic paid ad leading to a website that doesn’t provide a single instance of the term “risk” in any context.
- And finally a paid spot for the Falls Church Health Care website whose only reference to “risk” in any context is “Who is at greater risk for abnormal pap results?”
It’s no shock that Google has outsourced its ad policy enforcement to the culture of death. While company execs do hedge their political bets a bit, they overwhelming support the party of unrestricted abortion and in 2008, Google’s PAC, employees, and employees’ immediate families made Google the fifth-largest source of funds to Barack Obama’s election campaign. Recently, Google’s Exec Chairman Eric Schmidt has been cozying up to Governor Andrew “pro-lifers have no place in the state of New York” Cuomo.
Perhaps in light of the above evidence Ms. Hogue will reconsider her rush to judgment and “continue to work with Google to ensure that their commitment results in women being directed to the resources and services they are seeking when they search online, ending this manipulation of women making vital health decisions.” Or maybe Google will live up to its promise this week: “If we find violations, we’ll take the appropriate actions—including account disablings and blacklists—as quickly as possible.” But not likely.
The good old US of A is going to Hades in a fanny-pack. So, what else is new? Government bloats, G-men snoop, and so it goes. The culprits reign from both sides of the two-party grand neoclassical aisle and the likelihood of realignment died on the corner of Sane and Not-so with carbon monoxide-weary Don’t Tread on Me flag-wavers trying to ignite a 21st Century “Tea-Party.” And the hope of a competitive third party in the near future, alas, retired with the good Dr. Paul. As much as I’d like to blame our woes on just about everyone currently in political office, history suggests we were doomed not long after Benjamin Franklin declared (and warned): “A republic if you can keep it.” But rather than bemoan our continuing predicament, I thought it might be time—and healthful—to focus on the positive for a change. In that spirit here are 9 reasons to be cheerful…
1. The pro-life movement in the U.S. is on fire. Largely because of a brave, fierce, uncompromising young warrior…
…and graceful 22-year-old woman. Lila Rose, at 15, founded Live Action, a nonprofit that has deftly employed investigative journalism in ways that make the folks at 60-Minutes and Dateline look like amateurs. Lila and Live Action have done more than any other organization in recent history to expose the sins of the abortion industry (principally Planned Parenthood)—including and beyond the obvious killing of 1 million+ human beings in the U.S. every year. Lila and her colleagues have uncovered the willingness of abortion clinics to cover up sexual abuse and trafficking, to promote race-based and sex-selective abortions and to commit infanticide—all in the name of “choice.” The battle, of course, is far from over, but with science, Lila and God on the same side, there will be less peace for the wicked, more pro-life converts and, most importantly, more than a few new beautiful babies born.
2. 64% of voters think the U.S. is “heading in the wrong direction“—at least according to the pollsters at Rasmussen. What exactly the “wrong direction” means I can’t ascertain, and, yes, this would seem to be bad news, but I’ve heard that admitting you have a problem is an important positive first step.
3. 50% Americans see U.S. Involvement in Middle East as bad for the U.S. OK, so there’d be much less threat of terrorism if this number were upwards of 90% among voting Americans, but we have to start somewhere.
4. Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk has been relieved of his duties allegedly for admitting that he opposes same-sex “marriage.” While this is ostensibly a depressing story for those predisposed to sanity, three cheers for Sergeant Monk for standing up to the PC thought police who have now infiltrated the ranks of our senior military brass. Note: where are the Marines?
5. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. As a conservative firebrand in my teens during the final days of the Cold War, I reflexively cheered secrecy in the name of “national security,” but as I’ve come to distrust the Federal government on almost everything, FOIA is, indeed, welcome, if frequently stymied.
6. Pat Buchanan. My libertarian, left-wing and neo-con friends will, no doubt, pop a meniscus in a fit of extreme knee-jerkedness, but c’mon, you have to like the guy—regardless of your politics. Pugnacious yet gentlemanly, erudite yet colloquial, pessimistic yet undiscouraged, hard-boiled yet cheerful. Unapologetically American and always fun to read and watch! A good example for those of us inclined to wear our opinions on our sleeves.
7. Sen. Rand Paul probably listens to his dad at least a little bit.
8. Duck Dynasty. OK, I’ve never actually watched the show, but if only half what is being reported about the main characters is true—their strong Christian faith, public opposition to abortion, promotion of adoption and praying on camera—then let’s hope the Ducks continue to rule the ratings.
9. Pope Francis and his message of God’s infinite mercy. Much has been reported on the Pope’s comments regarding homosexuals on his flight home from World Youth Day in Brazil: “If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?” Rainbow warriors around the globe and their fellow-travelers in the Fourth Estate have gone gaga over this one, but maybe lost in all the misguided enthusiasm from non-Catholics and journalistic-spin-o-matic hullabaloo is Il Papa’s clear and encouraging message: We are ALL sinners, but God wants to forgive us and WILL forgive us. If only we will seek Him.
OK, I know you’re wondering, why “9” reasons to be cheerful? Doesn’t the title even make you a bit uncomfortable? Lists require 10, dang-it! Well, a curbludgeon can only be so cheerful. Besides, shouldn’t you come up with at least one reason of your own to be cheerful?
Back in my January post Three Cheers for Infanticide! I applauded an abortionista for her candor in admitting that “the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.” Well, it seems honesty is catching on in the pro-death camp. Fast-forward to the 5:15 mark in the video below of pro-life testimony by Ashley Granger. Listen for the chorus in the background.
- a 14-year-old can be arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt to school and
- a seven-year-old suspended from school for nibbling a pastry into the shape of a gun and
- a 14-year-old suspended for hugging a classmate and
- a six-year-old boy hauled into the principal’s office, written up for sexual harassment and reported to the police for smacking a girl’s hiney and
- 166 elementary school children in Maryland suspended in one year for sexual harassment, including three preschoolers, 16 kindergartners and 22 first-graders…
then how is this not child abuse…
It didn’t take long for Caitlin Tiller’s story to get bumped—not only off page one, but out of the news cycle entirely. According to Google, the last two major media accounts of the teen mom appeared on HuffingtonPost.com and Examiner.com on May 6, four days after the story broke. And Caitlin’s cause is conspicuously absent from the torrent of cyber-opinion, where stories develop, crusades are launched and offenders are held accountable. In case you’re not familiar with Ms. Tiller’s story, here’s a brief recap from ABC:
A high school student is fighting back after her senior photo was pulled from the school yearbook. The photo shows North Carolina senior Caitlin Tiller holding her now one-year old son. The school asked students to have their picture taken with something that best represents them or an achievement. Tiller chose her son because he represented her drive to stay in school. The school didn’t see it that way. Caitlin says she was told the picture promoted teen pregnancy. She sees it as a symbol of responsibility and love. “They should be proud that the students are willing to stay in school and graduate and make something of their self and not try and hide it,” Tiller said. School officials would only say the yearbook should be all about the student and not an extension of the student’s family.
So, where is the outrage from the champions of “choice?” Here’s a young woman who made a brave decision to keep her baby and finish high school, but nothing from Maureen Dowd, Cecile Richards, Rachel Maddow, Ilyse Hogue, et alia? Meanwhile Sandra Fluke continues to grab favorable headlines on an almost weekly basis even though Rush Limbaugh hasn’t called her a “slut” since February, 2012.
A search on Slate.com for “Caitlin Tiller” produces one result…for George Tiller, the notorious late-term abortionist who was murdered in 2009. A search for “George Tiller,” of course, produces seven pages of results, including glowing stories like, “The Bravery of George Tiller” and “What Made George Tiller so Special?” Other news and commentary outlets that carry water for the abortion industry have lots of positive stories about “Doctor” Tiller, as well, but here are the stats for Caitlin:
The Nation: 0
The Village Voice: 0
The Kos: 0
The New Yorker: 0
Mother Jones: 0
The New Republic: 0
Planned Parenthood: 0
A case could be made for the downside of publishing a photo of Caitlin with her one-year old son in the yearbook, i.e. promoting teen pregnancy, but no one seems up to that task. And there was a time when any birth out of wedlock, much less a teen birth, was kept quiet to minimize shame and scandal. But in these “progressive” times, it is absolute hypocrisy that those who try to badger and bully the rest of us into celebrating promiscuity, buggery, late-term abortion and other “choices,” simply ignore the choice of young Caitlin. Abortionistas are quick to accuse pro-lifers of having a “love affair with the fetus”1 while doing nothing to support women with “crisis” pregnancies or children who are born into poverty. This is complete nonsense, but not the subject of this post, so I urge you to visit the Pregnant on Campus Initiative or any major pro-life website for proof and elaboration. On the flip-side, however, when it comes to supporting women who choose life, there is a deafening silence in the pro-abortion crowd.
1. Incredibly, this moronic quote came not only from an M.D., but from the M.D. in 1994, President Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders.
No doubt the irony of placing these two articles next to each other is lost on the editors of the Miami Herald and fans of intentionally giving harmful products to 15 year-old girls.
A luxury of living in our modern enlightened times, is that we can all proudly boast that we would never have condoned—much less participated in—the cruelties and barbarisms of our ancestors.
Just fill in the blank yourself: “I would never ______________!”
enslave my fellow man
consider a person of color inferior
allow children to work
accuse someone of witchcraft
close my eyes to genocide
burn someone at the stake
watch two men fight to the death
feed people to lions
stone an adulteress
crucify my Lord
Well, not so fast. The pro-life bloggers and Tweeters that got the media and the nation to finally pay attention to the trial of late-term abortionist “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell have re-exposed a legal barbarity that is very much still with us.
Lest one think that Kermit’s house of horrors was just a one-off in an otherwise beneficent women’s reproductive health industry, at least 15 states have launched investigations over the last three years into abortion providers for inferior and/or improper “care.” Reports Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life, “In seeking to advance their own financial and political interests, Virginia abortion advocates blatantly ignored evidence of substandard conditions in Virginia abortion clinics, refusing to even acknowledge, and failing to contradict, evidence presented to the commonwealth’s board of health.”
And let’s not forget the details of the various legal late-term procedures themselves. Here they are in brief, but please do click on the links for more details:
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)—inserting forceps into the mother’s womb the abortionist grasps and dismembers the baby by twisting and tearing the parts of the body. Because the baby’s skull has often hardened it sometimes must be compressed or crushed to facilitate removal.
Saline Injection—the abortionist inserts a long needle through the mother’s abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby.
Prostaglandin Induction—prostaglandins prematurely injected into the amniotic sac induces violent labor and the birth of a child usually too young to survive. Typically, the violent contractions crush the baby to death, but if not, and it is delivered alive, it will usually die within a few hours from exposure. Often salt or another toxin is first injected to ensure that the baby will be delivered dead.
Intracardiac Injection—abortionist injects medication into the fetal heart to stop it beating.
Caesarean Section—the abortionist cuts the umbilical cord while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate.
As disturbing as these legal methods are, Planned Parenthood and other abortion enthusiasts continue to bemoan the proscription of intact dilation and extraction (aka partial-birth abortions) and would gladly bring back the gruesome practice, which is described by one abortion M.D. thusly:
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus…he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity…and pulls the extremity into the vagina…the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through…At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers. Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities…While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger…the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull…spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening…and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.1
Now, if that doesn’t make you cringe and get you to recalculate the actual altitude of your moral high ground…
Of course, the pro-aborts are always ready to help us realize that the pro-life movement uses deception to make the gullible public unreasonably squeamish. As an example, Amanda Marcotte writing for RH Reality Check a website focusing on “reproductive health and justice issues” warns
Anti-choicers’ best weapon is exploiting the disgustingness of surgery, any surgery. (If you described root canals like they do early term abortions, and put up doctored photographs of the results, you could get half of Americans to freak out and agree to be “pro-tooth”). But late term abortion is by far the grossest, most distressing of abortion procedures. They really do remove fetuses that are very close to the baby stage…
You see, it’s just gross and distressing because it’s surgery, not because it’s killing a baby. But a baby is what he or she is. The more honest abortionistas are admitting as much these days. Not convinced? Go visit a couple “preemie” websites or read this post from the Associated Press: Tiniest preemies growing up healthy despite odds. Or follow the work of Dr. Edward Bell, a University of Iowa pediatrics professor who runs an online registry of the world’s tiniest babies and reports that “survival of infants born weighing less than 400 g [14 oz.] is rare but increasing.”
We can continue to deny the personhood of our progeny in utero—even when they are “very close to the baby stage”—and employ euphemisms to disguise their humanity, but science and God urge us to do otherwise. So, what will our enlightened descendants say about us in the future?
1. Martin Haskell, M.D., Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion, Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992
Ah, yes, the children. It’s always about the children. Well, almost always. The sign below hangs in a Los Angeles office building garage. Does the State of California also require Planned Parenthood and the Beverly Hills third-trimester abortion mill Pro-Choice Medical Center to post similar warnings in their offices? Or at least in their garages?