July 16, 2010
Charmaine Debates Taxpayer Funding of Abortion on FOX
Happy Warrior; Winsome Argument Charmaine appeared on FOX today, Friday 16 July to debate against tax payer funding for abortion.
Charmaine taped this morning and the piece aired throughout the day. (Normally, ProLife talent should not tape – liberal media will use editorial-editing to win a debate. But FOX is, well, fair and balanced.)
Please let us know what you think.
Why you should watch.
No, not to check out Charmaine’s new hair cut and make-up. FOX in DC is expanding their make-up room next to the green room and the surface preparation was a bit rushed.
No. A viewer — especially those leaning toward abortion — should watch to learn why the ProLife position is winning in America; where 51 percent now self identify with Life.
1) A compelling argument.
2) A winsome argument.
3) A healthy argument.
A compelling argument. Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart would say and every gif-jpg file is worth a thousand words. The science of the sono-gram has shifted the debate from the mother to the child. 85 percent of women who see Baby’s First Picture choose to let the baby live.
This is why Cecile Richards at Planned Parenthood fights this scientific advancement. Too much information would change a woman’s choice. Science has not been good for abortion.
ProChoiceGal tweets “fetuses are humans. However, that doesn’t mean that pregnant women shouldn’t get basic human rights.” Re: abortion choice. Which brings us to,
Charmaine and Senator Orrin Hatch
A winsome argument. We in the Pro-Life movement are in the persuasion business. The Alert Reader knows that Your Business Blogger(R) teaches Sales and Marketing at the local college and has researched and taught how Pro-Life sells.
Over the years, we have shaken hands with nearly every pro-choice leader from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem to Margaret Sanger’s grandson, Alexander Sanger. They were not the happy people as one might expect and did not advance a positive, enjoyable debate. They do not smile. (Steinem has now married; I think she may have smiled since the honeymoon.) That’s why Charmaine’s Pro-Life message is selling so well: She smiles. A Happy Warrior. Who Wins.
The unfortunate Twitterer MsFetus makes as bitter a presentation as Eleanor Smeal (understand the subjective evaluation-not the person: the presentation). The first rule in debating is “whoever shouts or goes ad hominem loses.” The pro-abortion advocates are reduced to cussing in Caps Lock. They have lost.
UK Pro-Choice QueenCatherinex tweets, “In my personal opinion I wouldn’t call a zygote, embryo, then fetus a baby. So it’s not a case of dehumanising, it’s biology.” No, it’s not biology–it’s marketing: See your Baby; the Baby lives. Word descriptors-pictures are powerful.
Finally, the picture of health,
A healthy argument. Charmaine runs Americans United for Life, a public interest law firm. Her team of legal eagles has noted that the debate has moved from Roe v Wade. The Burger court wrote that the state has a compelling interest in the baby in the third trimester, but this was soon superseded by the health of the mother “exceptions.” Subsequent rulings have now asserted that abortion must remain legal on the “reliance” interpretation, where the mother’s financial health must be preserved as well as the perceived physical well-being.
(Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D., as a case study, would refute this. She didn’t need abortion to become a President and CEO.)
But we have come back full circle to the mother’s health. Science is now telling us that abortion is a crushing psychological burden where women are now stating–in public–that they now regret.
Studies also demonstrate that abortion removes protections allowing women to have a higher risk of breast cancer.
Women are regretting and re-thinking thinking their abortions. Harms to women will be the next foundation in the future of the abortion debate.
Thank you (foot)notes,
Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Kagan Nomination
Watch Charmaine’s Expert Testimony to the Judiciary Committee on the Sotomayor Nomination