Image 01 Image 03

This Senate ad could be titled “There But For Fortune”

This Senate ad could be titled “There But For Fortune”

But it’s actually titled “Trust”

This has been a great season so far for breakthrough videos by candidates seeking name recognition.

Who can forget Joni Ernst from Iowa who bragged about castrating pigs? That ad propelled her into a strong position in the crowded the Republican field.

Terri Lynn Land’s moments of silence on the War On Women likewise has gained her national attention.

The add below by Monica Wehby, running for Senate in Oregon, should also gain her attention. (h/t Right Scoop)

The words “there but for fortune may go you or I“* immediately came to mind when I saw the ad.

And I’m not talking about running for Senate. Or being a parent. Or a doctor.

[*from the Phil Ochs song There But For Fortune.)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Humphrey's Executor | April 23, 2014 at 7:34 pm

I wish her well but I hope her skills will not be wasted in the Senate.

legalizehazing | April 23, 2014 at 8:43 pm

That’s a nice commercial. She doesn’t say anything. Can’t beat the story.

This former fetus highly approves of Dr. Wehby’s message! That’s the right approach — put the message out there and challenge consciences. Does America want ObamAbort with gov’t death panels, or do they want real doctors who value life?

Here’s an atrocity that future Senator Wehby might be able to stop (and it involves her home state):
Canadian aborted babies incinerated in Oregon waste-to-energy facility to provide electricity

too bad shes pro choice and not pro life. seems sort of odd to me.

    JerryB in reply to dmacleo. | April 23, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    I searched a bit and found this:

    She said her Catholic background and work taking care of children informed her “personally pro-life,” stance on abortion, but said those views weren’t going to change the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.

    “The Supreme Court ruled that this is, that abortion is supposed to be safe and legal,” Wehby said. “And that’s where we are. I don’t think this should be used as a litmus test for people.”

    In other words, she personally likes to save babies, but she’s OK with folks who murder them.

      n.n in reply to JerryB. | April 23, 2014 at 9:54 pm

      The Supreme Court does not have the courage to state that human evolution begins with conception (and ends with death), which is self-evident to anyone who does not take comfort in the popular myth of spontaneous conception.

    Freddie Sykes in reply to dmacleo. | April 23, 2014 at 9:53 pm

    I watched a debate featuring Sarah Palin when she ran for governor. She used a phrase similar to “For myself, I am pro-life” when asked question after question on under which circumstances she would favor abortion. The fact remains that, as long as the Roe decision stands, a senator or governor has little power with respect to abortion policy. Being personally against abortion is a window into a person’s character; running against abortion is a Quixotic distraction.

      It also confirms the normalization of an unprecedented human rights violation, and reflects the immoral or amoral character of people who support or tolerate it, while narrowing a focus on their principal, motivating interests.

        Freddie Sykes in reply to n.n. | April 24, 2014 at 8:06 am

        I do not expect morality from government but the basic rule of law. Absent a constitutional amendment or the overturn of Roe ( overturning Plessy took almost 60 years), the SCOTUS has removed the issue from the control of senators and governors.

        And as to “unprecedented”: Jesus lived during the Roman Empire which had normalized quite a few human rights violations. His advice for dealing with such a government was stated in Matt 22:21. That is good advice if you have no interest in influencing politics.

        Me? Once the names are on the ballot, I am looking for the lesser of two of weasels.

a hard and very personal decision to make. Spina bifida with severe hydrocephalus usually results in a child that is paraplegic or quadriplegic and has severe brain damage. Bringing a child, in that condition, into the world requires a lifetime of intense care and significant expense as the child will likely never be independent.

there are a few folks on the higher functioning end that do not suffer severe brain damage and can be independent, and it is difficult to gauge the amount of brain damage in utero. It isn’t either medicine or government’s place to make the decision either to keep or to terminate for the parents. Give the parents the information that is known and let the parents make their own decision.

    JerryB in reply to aerily. | April 24, 2014 at 7:38 am

    a hard and very personal decision to make

    You mean, the “decision” to deliberately end the life of your child? We’re not talking about removing a comatose person from a respirator. It’s a thriving baby. What kind of decision is that?

    Immolate in reply to aerily. | April 24, 2014 at 10:12 am

    Not a personal decision to make. You don’t kill innocents, no matter how hard their life will make yours. If you lack the courage to raise an imperfect child, then please allow another to do so, or refrain from creating one in the first place.

      aerily in reply to Immolate. | April 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm

      “If you lack the courage to raise an imperfect child, then please allow another to do so, or refrain from creating one in the first place.”

      I don’t think you understand either the commitment that it takes to raise a child with severe brain damage nor the resourced needed by the parents and society. I completely understand the choice that many people make to keep the child, but at the same time I understand those who understand that it isn’t something that they can do.

      your mention of the idea that folks should not procreate because they might not be able to care for a severely brain-damaged child is not an idea that is rooted in reality. It’s little more than an insult to those that either have made or are struggling with a decision that you hopefully will never have to make.

        2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to aerily. | April 24, 2014 at 3:33 pm

        Actually, I know lots of people who make that commitment everyday. Yes, it’s hard and it’s challenging – a lot of time it’s frustrating and draining. But there is no doubts.

        What’s difficult to fight is the barrage of negative propaganda a family in this situation is hit with and to deal with the volume of condemnation that the medical establishment will heap on you for valuing that life.

        We will all soon be facing these issues when IPAB begins placing values on human lives.

not an easy one, nor one that folks want to make.

Wow conservatives advocating big government cool. No big government assistance but big government should be used to impose Christian ideology on all citizens. Conservatives are hypocrites.