Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ron Reagan: ‘There’s No Such Thing as Partial-Birth Abortion’

Ron Reagan: ‘There’s No Such Thing as Partial-Birth Abortion’

Um…

Message to Ron Reagan: when it comes to this barbaric procedure, it’s not about the nomenclature . . . On this evening’s Hardball, Ron Reagan claimed that “there’s no such thing as partial-birth abortion. Doesn’t exist.” Reagan criticized third-debate moderator Chris Wallace for having used the term.

Would Reagan’s exquisite sensitivities be assuaged if Wallace had used the technical term: intact dilation and extraction? The bottom line is the same: Hillary Clinton supports it and Donald Trump opposes it.

Note: Chris Matthews was supportive of Reagan, saying of the reasons for the procedure “they’re not picking hair color.” Would Hillary Clinton oppose it if they were?

RON REAGAN: The third debate. Think of the third debate, when Chris Wallace got around to asking about abortion. And how did he characterize it? Late-term abortions and “partial-birth abortions.” There’s no such thing as partial-birth abortion. Doesn’t exist. 1.3% of abortions take place in the third trimester. Almost all of them, because there is a serious health problem for the mother or the child or both. And that’s the reality of that, and yet nobody, even Hillary Clinton, did not correct Chris Wallace when he said that.

CHRIS WALLACE: Yeah, I think — they’re not picking hair color.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | October 27, 2016 at 8:41 pm

Looks like the “young Reagan” has been sniffing the Peruvian Marching Powder a bit too often. I say that with the knowledge of someone who works in the chemical dependency field.

    Any speculation act to what Hillary is on?

    I have been wondering ever since Howard Dean and Carrie Fisher accused The Donald of taking cocaine.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Zelsdorf Ragshaft III. | October 28, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Yes, I can see how a lucid comment would be the basis for a drive-by diagnosis.

    While you are at it, what is Trump on? His comment that they should cancel the election and give him the presidency – Is that drug induced or evidence of mental disease or defect?

Mark Finkelstein | October 27, 2016 at 8:52 pm

“Peruvian Marching Powder” — LOL

    Michael Johnson in reply to Mark Finkelstein. | October 28, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Why on earth does anyone care what little Ronnie thinks? Are we going to ask the idiot spawn of other presidents or politicos to enlighten us? It’s just as stupid as caring what actors or musicians think.

What is called a ‘partial birth abortion’ is more properly identified as an extremely cruel and painful slaughter; so Ron Reagan is accidentally correct.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Olinser. | October 28, 2016 at 1:28 am

    And the Junior Anti-Sex League invented the term ‘partial birth abortion’.

      Partial birth abortion is not a medical term in that you are correct. However it does aptly described the operation known as intact D&E. Lets let Dr Mark Haskell, who performed over 1,000 such procedures describe it for us as he did in an interview with Cincinnati Medicine where he congrats the procedure with a tradition dismemberment abortion:

      “Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can’t they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you’d reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. . . . Then I said, “Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn’t have to feel around for it.” I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.”

      Serendipity indeed.

      I guess you got your 50 cents for that post.

facebookisfacist | October 27, 2016 at 9:42 pm

This is pretty funny. Neither one of these two are Doctors, and I’m sure they never have actually researched the subject beyond political news pages. So why do I care what two hyper-partisan politicos think.

To be a good liberal you have to pretend you don’t know a lot of things.

What changed my view on almost any type of abortion is a women I meet. She was a product of rape. She has an amazing story.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

Partial birth abortion not only exists, but Obama, as Senator for about a week, voted that babies who survived should be denied treatment and allowed to die.

Other partial “births,” of course, come out limb by limb . . . all the better to preserve their brains, organs, and body parts for sale to the highest bidder.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 27, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    Why is it the media NEVER knows anything they are talking about, but discuss anyway?! (rhetorical question, of course)

    They can’t refute the idiocy that is the CURRENT NARRATIVE. The left is going out all over the place saying this nonsensical agitprop.

    Yes, it exists. Read: this. It’s called “intact dilation and extraction” (IDX).

    Only a kool-aid drinking, delusional fellow-traveler would try to argue that this MEDICAL PROCEDURE THAT KILLS BABIES “doesn’t exist.”

    Deluding himself, and spreading the lies far and wide.

    G. de La Hoya in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 28, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Captain Abortion, a.k.a. Barack Obama, did this as an Illinois state senator. God bless Jill Stanek, R.N. for opening our eyes to this practice!

actual post about abortion, and n.n. is nowhere to be found…

He’s an idiot. Being Reagen’s son doesn’t make him smart.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | October 28, 2016 at 1:40 am

I know I am spoiling serious commentary by pointing out that late term abortions are performed when the fetus is not viable or the health or life of the mother is in serious jeopardy. Any claim that women can get elective late term abortions is a bald faced lie.

I guess a woman has to die or be serious harmed in order to prove that she should have been allowed to have an abortion.

    This is a complete fallacy. Lets hear from Dr Mark Haskell, expert in intact D&E, in an interview with American Medical News:

    “And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.”

    Lets also hear from Dr James McMahon who performed over 2,000 late second to third trimester abortions during his distinguished medical career. In testimony before Congress he stated that only 9% of such abortions were rooted in medical health issues for the mother and that the most common of those was depression. 56% involved issues with the baby but more than half of these were surgically correctable (such as cleft lip/palate and cystic hydroma or may have led to some mental impairment. The remain ONE THIRD involved NO fetal or maternal health problems whatsoever.

      MarkSmith in reply to Massinsanity. | October 28, 2016 at 9:42 am

      Looks like OR is losing it. They need to cut the posting pay to a nickle.

      The remain ONE THIRD involved NO fetal or maternal health problems whatsoever.

      My friend is voting for Clinton because of the Pro-Kill babies stance. He claims that nobody will adopt those crack babies from Detroit. Can you see the two flaws in that logic?

      Massinsanity: And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range.

      There seems to be confusion about the term of pregnancy. 13-26 weeks is second trimester, not third trimester. Second trimester fetuses are generally not viable outside the womb. Third trimester abortions are rare, and nearly always occur because of serious health problems with the fetus or mother. States can prohibit elective abortions during the third trimester.

        Massinsanity in reply to Zachriel. | October 28, 2016 at 3:52 pm

        I understand the timing of each trimester but would point out that the age of viability continues to drop and we now have babies born at 23 weeks surviving and I used that quote from Haskell simply to point out that he states that 80% of late second trimester abortions were purely elective.

        I also find it curious that your completely ignored the data from Dr McMahon who stated that ONE THIRD of 3rd trimester abortions he performed using PBA methods were purely elective and a large percentage of those that were not were done for conditions that are treatable.

          Massinsanity: would point out that the age of viability continues to drop and we now have babies born at 23 weeks surviving

          Sure. States can probably prohibit abortions at that point, as long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

          Massinsanity: I also find it curious that your completely ignored the data from Dr McMahon

          You didn’t provide a primary source, so you didn’t provide “data”.

          We did point your confusion concerning the statement “late term abortions are performed when the fetus is not viable or the health or life of the mother is in serious jeopardy”. This is clearly referring to third trimester abortions, but you responded concerning second trimester abortions.

          MarkSmith in reply to Massinsanity. | October 28, 2016 at 4:54 pm

          Sure. States can probably prohibit abortions at that point, as long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

          That is the problem “health of the mother” means a bad day emotionally or a pimple on the face. Your statement sounds great, but that term is not ground in a good medical definition.

          Even before Roe vs Wade, the life of the mother condition was in play and not a problem. I also agree with the life of the baby too.

          Massinsanity: That is the problem “health of the mother”

          Health of the mother may include serious infection, or organ failure, or death. Are you saying the law shouldn’t allow an exception for any threat to the woman’s health?

          Sorry. That last comment should have been attributed to Mark Smith.

      * As long as there exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

      Massinsanity in reply to Massinsanity. | October 28, 2016 at 9:32 pm

      Not sure who “we” is Zach but there was no confusion. Regarding the 3rd trimester data the source is congressional testimony. Look it up for yourself.

        Massinsanity: Regarding the 3rd trimester data the source is congressional testimony.

        We thought to give you a chance to support your claim. Apparently, it’s just vestigial echos from the echochamber. We’ll ignore your claim about “data” until you substantiate it.

    “Health of the mother” is the free pass to abort at any stage for any reason.

    “Any claim that women can get elective late term abortions is a bald faced lie.”

    Oh, really?
    http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

    I’m not sure if that link I used in my other post is still active. I’m having trouble with it. But just do a search on “kermit gosnell grand jury report” to see about your “bald faced lie” claim. Even if the link doesn’t work, the commentary will tell you about it.

DieJustAsHappy | October 28, 2016 at 6:31 am

I wonder why the network trotted out Ron, the noted authority on ____________, to discuss this topic at this time?

“Partial birth abortion doesn’t exist” seems to be the current talking point, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhtphabTpIs.

“Would Reagan’s exquisite sensitivities be assuaged if Wallace had used the technical term: intact dilation and extraction? The bottom line is the same: Hillary Clinton supports it and Donald Trump opposes it.”
Um… seriously?

If there’s no such thing then who is harmed by banning it?

Of course it exists! What do think is responsible for your twisted brain?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend