SnakeOil-270x373

 

 The following is a quote from The Immoral Minority (post 09 May 2009) regarding dismissal of the Sondra Tompkins ethics complaint filed against Gov. Sarah Palin by Alaska Attorney Thomas Daniel. By now, we all know the background story of the dozen or so ethics violations complaints lodged against the governor, but if it has somehow missed your desktop, the links in Gryphen’s post will bring you up to date.

However, I’m not here to discuss the ethics complaints. For me, there’s a far more insipient train of flawed logic which warrants attention. I first heard it in one of the Governors 2008 campaign speeches. It was veiled inside carefully chosen words, but it was there. Then I heard it distinct and clear in the middle of her Pro-Life speech given last month in Indiana. And now, here it is again, in black and white for all to read:

Regarding the trip to Evansville, Indiana, near the end of the legislative session, Daniel concluded that Tompkins was wrong again about the governor using her official position for personal gain. “The governor was not invited to speak at the right-to-life dinner in Indiana because she is governor of Alaska. Rather she was invited because of her national standing, her outspoken opposition to abortion, and her recent personal decision to forego an abortion.”

 

Pro-Life philosophy is founded on the basic principle that neither doctor nor mother have a right to decide to end fetal life. Pro-Life philosophy maintains that life begins at conception and aborting a fetus at any stage, for any reason is tantamount to murder. Pro-life advocates blow up abortion clinics resulting in hundreds of deaths to show how strongly they believe in this preservation of life. They tell camera and reporter alike that they represent and speak for the unborn child who cannot speak for itself.

Pro-Life advocates don’t believe in choice. By sheer definition, an advocate of Pro-Life does not choose to keep her pregnancy because at the heart of her belief she is morally obligated from the point of conception to keep it. No doubts. No questions. No wavering. No choice.

So when the national poster girl for Pro-Life uses the excuse of needing to leave important legislative negotiations to travel across country to give a speech because she needed to speak out about her having made a “recent personal decision to forego an abortion” to counteract an ethics violations complaint, it seems to me that very statement should be raising eyebrows at Pro-Life headquarters across the globe.

Let me say this one more time: Pro-Life advocates do not make personal decisions to forego abortions. They assist other, non-pro-life believers in making that decision. For the advocate themselves, there is no choice to be made.

And before one of Sarah’s staffers can swoop down and alter Thomas Daniel’s above quote, why not hear it from Sarah herself?

This video clip is a middle section of her speech in Indiana, where she details how she made her decision to keep baby Trig to a roomful of adoring fans – none of whom actually listened or they would have been as appalled as I am.

Sarah describes the circumstances surrounding how she made her choice (including the fact she was out of town, no one knew her therefore no one would know, not even Todd) at 4:40

Pro- Choice isn’t about abortion. Pro-Choice advocates choose to maintain their pregnancies every day. Pro-Choice is about having the right to make that choice to begin with, based upon an individual’s life circumstances and personal beliefs. For Sarah Palin to say she’s undergone and understands the thought process of choosing to either abort or maintain her 13 week old fetus with DS is an admission she made a choice – which completely opposes the Pro-Life philosophy – more or less shooting it in the foot.

As a true Pro-Life advocate, Sarah would not have entertained the idea of fetal termination when she first discovered her late-in-life pregnancy, as claimed. Not for one second would the thought of killing her 13 week old unborn child later on,waft over her soul. And I’ve been absolutely God-smacked that no one in the Pro-Life movement has picked up on this and called her to task.

Either you truly believe in something Sarah, or you’re just an aging vaudville act complete with smoke and mirrors and a bottle of snake oil to sell.

* * * * * * * * * * UPDATE * * * * * * * * * *

HOW CONVENIENT THAT  ALL SEVEN OF THE SEVEN PART VIDEO OF SARAH’S SPEECH IN EVANSVILLE INDIANA HAVE SUDDENLY AND MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARED FROM YOUTUBE.

MUST BE ALL THAT OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ALASKA AIR THE GOVERNOR KEEPS TELLING US ABOUT

If anyone has video footage of Sarah Palin’s speech commonly called the “Smile Breakfast” in Evansville Indiana, please contact me via this blog.

* * * * * * * * * * UPDATE  TWO * * * * * * * * * *

Many thanks to Dr. Patois for providing this link. All seven parts of the smile breakfast speech can be viewed here. While all the clips are interesting, it is the sixth clip in the series which reveals Sarah Palin’s thought process for choosing to maintain her pregnancy – clearly illustrating to a roomful of Pro-Life followers, that she actively made a choice.

* * * * * * * * * * UPDATE  THREE * * * * * * * * * *

And poof it was gone!  I did get to listen one more time, but by the time I posted the link the clip had been removed. The right-to-life speech given the night before was covered by C-SPAN. It’s likely they also covered the following morning’s breakfast speech in Evansville.

It occurs to me that if enough people requested it, if C-SPAN does control the footage, they might be coaxed into putting it back on public display.

Really Sarah, having copies of this speech removed from view only piques everyone’s curiosity, causing all of us to ask… what are you trying to hide missy?