An open letter to Ann Coulter

Dear Ann Coulter,

Dammit, Ann Coulter.

I like you. A lot. I’ve read all your books. No, seriously, all of them.

When I was in my 20s, I thought you were maybe the Antichrist. I didn’t know why exactly I thought you were the Antichrist. All the other liberals did, so I did, too. It wasn’t hard. Liberalism is easy. It makes you feel smart and cool. When the other smart, cool people said your name the way some people say “cockroach,” I got the picture.

They really, really hate you. About a year ago, someone close to me who is a big liberal was at my house. I had one of your books sitting on the coffee table. While I was out of the room, he took a receipt and drew a speech bubble on the back, with the words “Hi! I’m a c**t!” And put it right above your head. Later on, I asked him why he thought you were a “c**t,” but he didn’t have a specific answer. I would bet you everything I own of value (this mainly consists of this laptop, my wedding rings, and my 2005 Ford Ranger, “Truck Norris”) that he has never read a single word you’ve ever written.

Neither had I when I hated you. I think I had read about one sentence of your writing, out of context (obviously), and decided you were in league with Satan. Except I didn’t believe in Satan, of course; that was a fairy tale for dumb Christians. I hated you for the same reason I hated George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill O’Reilly, and many others: because I was told you were the enemy. I would not have been able to defend my hatred of any of these people – including you – with much depth. But I “knew” you were evil. The Nation and Mother Jones told me so.

In 2010, I was pretty new to Catholicism and becoming aware of conservatism as something more than “being mean.” I began making my way towards it by reading, for the first time, our nation’s founding documents. I also became familiar with de Tocqueville, Hayek, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I was delving into this because I was pro-life, and ObamaCare – which was in the process of being rammed into law – scared me. The more I learned, the more it started to scare me for other reasons, too.

See, my worldview changed when, for the first time in my adulthood, God convinced me of His existence. That was in 2008. I no longer saw man at the center of the universe, and everything was turned on its head. I tiptoed toward the other side. It took me a few years. I didn’t want to make the same mistake twice. I didn’t want to be conservative until I was absolutely convinced that conservatism was right, because I was beginning to discover that being conservative kind of, um, sucks. Everybody hates you. It doesn’t matter how much you tell people that you’re not mean or that you have a good argument. They won’t listen to you.

But you know all this. You live it.

It was sometime in 2010 that I first started reading your columns. My conversion was picking up steam, and I decided that I’d read quite a bit – though not enough, never enough! – of the philosophy that underpinned conservative thinking. I was ready to go right to the fiery furnace that drove the locomotive of liberal contempt for conservatives. That would be you. I figured if I could read your writing, and agree with it, I was a conservative for really real. I didn’t expect that to happen, though. I figured I would scoff and keep you on the enemies list.

But I didn’t. I loved you. I loved your style. Yes, it was somewhat lacking in subtlety. No, it was not nice. But I’ve always thought subtlety is overrated, and I was never that great at “nice.” True kindness – true love – is a lot of things, but it is not “nice.” I am a Christian. “Nice” is for quasi-Buddhists who live in the Bay Area and drive Smart cars and secretly hate everyone east of Oakland. Being nice at the expense of being honest is not kind. It is not loving.

I had to look up the word “polemicist.” (I dropped out of college because rules were for Republicans.) It took me a while to understand what you were doing, but I got it. I started trying to explain to people that you’re honest and funny and nobody researches as well as you. Meanwhile, I was reading all your books and sharing them with people, or buying them as gifts. I pre-ordered your most recent one, Mugged, months before its release. If I hadn’t been in the throes of wedding planning, I would have read it in one day. It was brilliant, and everyone in America should have to read it because it is truth.

I like you because you are funny and you are not afraid. So many conservatives lack courage. They’re scared of being silenced and ostracized, and I don’t blame them. I’m scared of it, too. I’ve lost friends. I still lose them occasionally. It can be lonely.

Then the election happened. And your column, “DON’T BLAME ROMNEY,” came out.


You’ve written about abortion before. Sometimes when you write about abortion, it’s hilarious. That’s something I’m always trying to do: be pro-life and funny at the same time. It’s hard. Nobody’s expecting a knee-slapper on the subject of dead babies. But humor disarms people. It reminds them you’re sane. Only the crazy are deadly earnest all the time. It’s hard to change people’s minds about abortion, but on any subject, if you can make them laugh, you’re halfway there.

I remember when you said this:

I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

That was in 2009, in your column “49 Million to Five,” when you pointed out how absurd it is to call the pro-life movement violent. Anti-life zealots went insane over this, failing or refusing to notice that you were satirizing a pro-abortion argument. To anyone with a brain and a sense of humor, it was obvious that you were pointing out the hypocrisy of those who wept for the abortionist while condoning abortion.

This is just one example of the many times you have championed and defended the pro-life cause.

Then you wrote this:

The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s “reproductive rights,” not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots [Akin and Mourdock] decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public’s mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.

While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us — such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws — Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.

No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line…

The overwhelming majority of people — including me — are going to say the law shouldn’t force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.

Is that so hard for Republicans to say?

Purist conservatives are like idiot hipsters who can’t like a band that’s popular. They believe that a group with any kind of a following can’t be a good band, just as show-off social conservatives consider it a mark of integrity that their candidates — Akin, Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell — take wildly unpopular positions and lose elections.

Ann. Oh, Ann. This hurts.

I am not going to make the case in this column for being pro-life without exceptions. I’ve done it before, and you know the argument anyway.

What hurts is that you would question our motives. This isn’t an issue of tactics – graphic images vs. no graphic images; incrementalism vs. all-or-nothing. This is about the actual lives of actual children. How could you think for a second we are interested in being “pro-life badasses” when what we are really interested in is not abandoning any children – no matter who their fathers are? Those “gradations along a line” are human lives. If we don’t believe that, what are we doing here? Why are we wasting our time writing and speaking and marching and praying and helping women and making our friends hate us?

If any lives are worth abandoning for votes, why not all of them?

It also needs to be understood that what Todd Akin said was stupid and what Richard Mourdock said was said stupidly. Todd Akin, bless his heart, made a truly idiotic comment out of total ignorance. Richard Mourdock said something totally true – that the child born of rape is wanted and loved and intended by God – in a way that made it sound like he thinks God likes it when ladies get raped. Todd Akin should have left the race. Mourdock should have clarified his statement.

I keep hearing all these Fox News pundits talk about how my party needs to start pandering to special interest groups and being “nicer.” And I think: no. Nice is not kind. We have to keep being honest. We have to be who we are, and then we’ll win.

Same thing here, Ann: until we explain and competently defend our belief that all children deserve life, without exception, those children will never have a chance. They will never be protected. There is no one else to do it but us. I am not willing to let even one of them go. I am not willing to win an election by abandoning the children of rape. I know you think it’s better in the long run to get pro-life people elected, but we can’t do it by lying and saying that babies conceived in rape and incest aren’t worthy of life. They are. If we don’t protect them now, we can’t ever. And I’m not okay with that.

Lying is for them, not us.

I freakin’ love you, Ann. You’re smarter about politics than me. You’re smarter than me, period. But you’re wrong about this. I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with you, but I have to now. (And not just because you compared me to a hipster. I can’t stand hipsters, although I like European beer and I wear really cool glasses and hero-worship Jack White.)

I am going to continue to be 100% pro-life, without exception, and encourage others to do the same. If that makes me a pro-life badass, fine. If it makes me an annoying purist, fine. But it also makes me right.

Your friend,


  • Wow. Just wow. This is really good stuff. I myself am a Coulter fan and I had the same reaction to her article. Good for you, Kristen.

  • Sandra

    Maybe you can start by offering this mother some financial assistance and emotional help,,20090247,00.html

    Oh, and while you’re at it: If you’re pro life, extend your compassion to animals. Go vegan.

    • Juia

      Maybe you don’t realize this, but there are hundreds of pro-life pregnancy centers that do exactly that. They offer free help of this kind and more to women. I know because I volunteer at one.

      Also, nobody is saying that mother must raise the child. Adoption is always an option. There are lots of couples waiting to adopt a child.

      Pro-life means to protect the lives of humans. If an unborn child is not human, what is it? Cat, cow? Humans reproduce humans. A human life is infinitely more valuable than that of an animal. However, if you did what some abortion procedures do to an unborn child (who sensitive to pain from at least 10 weeks) to a kitten (tear it apart limb from limb alive), you would probably serve time for animal cruelty.

      • Sandra

        Unless you walk in the shoes of the victim you can NEVER speak for her.
        A human life is NOT infinitely more valuable than that of an animal.
        If you want others to accept your views on the rights of an unborn child, you have to listen to (and accept) others views on animal rights.
        Its a two way street.

        • Ok Sandra, pretend a human fetus is a fertilized eagle egg. If someone is caught destroying it they will be fined and sent to prison. There are far MORE laws protecting animals in the U.S. than unborn humans. Imagine if it was legal to kill 54 million prehatched eagles and your tax dollars supported those deaths, how sickened would that make you as an animal rights activist? Abortion is the #1 cause of death in America.

          • ProTruth2

            Imagine if it was legal to kill 54 million prehatched eagles

            If there were 54 million unhatched eagle eggs, it would not be illegal to destroy them.

            And before someone starts screeching about eugenics: no, I’m not saying that abortion should be used for population control. I’m saying that the bald eagle analogy is a fatuous argument.

          • Yet an animal rights activist would still be upset at the destruction of such a great number of eagle eggs. I don’t see the argument as fatuous at all. Ashley is trying to explain how pro-lifers feel about the legal destruction of the unborn in a way to which Sandra can relate.

          • Elise

            I think people would be upset if eagle eggs were destroyed because some varieties of eagle are on the brink of extinction, which is why they are subject to such strict protection. Human beings are a long way from becoming extinct.

      • Timmehh

        ” However, if you did what some abortion procedures do to an unborn child (who sensitive to pain from at least 10 weeks) to a kitten (tear it apart limb from limb alive), you would probably serve time for animal cruelty.”

        Okay, this is blatantly false. Animals such as dogs and cats undergo abortions all the time. Specifically, breeders do selective abortion if the animal is carrying too many kittens or puppies in the womb. In addition, owners will get abortions for their dog if they are too old. If they don’t the mother may end up dying, or if the puppies come out sick or she is sick, she may end up eating her young.

        • Julia

          I didn’t mean an animal abortion. I mean that if you tore apart your pet alive.

          • Timmehh

            What? That’s exactly what an abortion is…Are you saying beings in the womb are not alive?

          • Julia

            Sorry, let me clarify; I’m not be very clear today. I’m not debating whether or not tearing an animal is OK in the womb or out of it. It’s not that important of a question, because animals lives are not very important because they are not people, that’s why it’s OK for us to kill them and eat them, etc.

            The point I was trying to make is that if you killed even some Adult ANIMALS (such as a cat, dog, etc.) the way an unborn human child is killed, you would be probably be prosecuted for animal cruelty.

            I am not making a parallel between killing an animal and a unborn human, just trying to point out how crazy some of our laws are, which make it Ok to do to an unborn human being what you are not always allowed to do an animal.

            Hopefully I made more sense this time.

          • Timmehh

            Ah, I understand you now. But now that I understand you I don’t think that you’ve made a good comparison ha ha. If you tore apart an adult animal people would throw a fit, just as they would throw a fit if you tore apart an adult human. A person who is pro choice is not going to throw a fit over an unborn animal being torn up, just as they are not going to throw a fit over an unborn human being torn up. That, I think is a fairer comparison.

            And as for animals, I do think that they are important. A single animal may not be as important as a single human, and yes I am fine with eating them. However, humanity has time and time again driven some species to extinction, and if we have the mentality that all animals are unimportant we will drive even more species there.

          • MS P LAZENBY


  • Julia

    Great post! I felt the same way when I saw her article.

    It is people who have her opinion that undermine the pro-life position. It is hypocritical to say, “It’s a baby with a right not to be killed … unless, that is, if the Dad’s a bad guy, then it’s OK to kill that blob of tissue”

    Lot’s of people would oppose the death penalty for the rapist (a painless death, mind you), but it’s OK to torturously kill the innocent child?

    I sympathize with the immense trauma that the mother is going through, but I don’t believe in the death penalty for innocent people. Punish the rapist, not the child.

    Also, studies have shown that women who abort their children conceived out of rape often regret it, and it only adds another intensely traumatizing experience on top of the first.

    • Detroiter327

      I would love to see these studies. Also, the death penalty is far from painless. Lethal injection is said to be the “least painful” but even conservatives admit there can be excruciating pain involved with that method.

  • Kristen you spend a lot of time demeaning your former self, the liberal who was spoon-fed what to believe without much reflection. Why is there never any self-reflection about what you might be spoon-fed now? How are we to know this iteration of Kristen is the real one? The fact that you’d treasure a McCarthyite like Coulter (who Christopher Hitchens famously denounced as a “typer” rather than a “writer”) says to me you’ve gone from one set of polemicists to another.

    • Condescension assuming that opinions that differ from yours are “spoon-fed” might be useful to you as a security blanket, Astraspider, but it’s no substitute for intelligent, substantive argument. And regrettable though the revelation of what Kristen “says to you” may be, you should have figured out long ago that, as a committed radical, you’re not exactly the target audience for most right-of-center commentary.

      • I just wonder what it means, psychologically, to swing so far from one political axis to another. She says she read thoughtful Leftist publications whilst a Leftist (Mother Jones and The Nation). Her substitute for those now are … Ann Coulter? I’d suggest she pick up the WSJ or the Weekly Standard once in awhile.

        • You have no idea what she does or doesn’t read, and Coulter is generally every bit as substantive as WSJ and WS…sometimes more so.

          • I had higher hopes for your ability to discern seriousness, Calvin. Here’s more Hitchens on Coulter:

            “I have the distinct feeling that people do not buy Ann Coulter’s
            creed-screeds and speed-reads in order to enhance their knowledge of
            history or their command of syllogism. She has emerged as a persona
            because she has mastered the politics of resentment, and because she
            can combine the ideology of Human Events (the obscure ‘Joe McCarthy
            was right’ magazine) with the demand of the chat-show bookers
            for a tall blonde with a rapid delivery”. Her non sequiturs and vulgar ignorance are “pitfalls that are set by spite and by haste, and Coulter topples leggily into them every time”.

          • Any particular reason to take Hitchens’ opinion seriously?

          • I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that posting someone else’s subjective, unproven invective is the most intellectually strenuous effort you can put toward this discussion.

            I also love the irony of your particular example – goodness knows creed-screed, resentment, vulgarity, and spite are terms that could NEVER be applied to Hitchens himself! No, sir!

    • “Why is there never any self-reflection about what you might be spoon-fed now? How are we to know this iteration of Kristen is the real one?”

      Because she uses reasoned arguments now, whereas before, she launched personal attacks to skirt reason. Duh.

  • Ed Clark

    Great Article. By the way, she is not smarter than you. You stand on principle and logic. She, in this instance does not. While it is permissable, using logic and reason, to work for an end to abortion in all cases except…, the underlying philosophy must be that you are attempting to advance the cause of life and limit evil in a politically expedient or realistic way. Paul Ryan put it well in the debates when he said that the principle of ( I paraphrase) ” a life is a life must be maintained, but the policy of this administration would be to oppoose abortion except in cases of rape or incest…” this is a defendable position. He realizes that his stance will not be swallowed by modern society, and he chooses to act where there is a chance of success whithout comprimising his principles. Unless I am misunderstanding her Anne’s stance is not based on the principle of the sanctity of life in ALL cases. Viva Cristo Rey.

  • I agree Kristen, I am totes obsessed with Ann and was very dissapointed in that article. Thanks for addressing it, please share her response if you get one.

  • Excellent post. Thank you for writing this. I, too, was really hurt by what Coulter said, especially this:

    “Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the
    product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing
    gradations along a line…”

    Good grief. How does she not see that that’s exactly what the hard-core pro-choicers say about mothers who kill their children for any reason?

  • I’ve previously heard Ann speak much more reasonably about rape exceptions and those who support them; I hope part of this latest column was just her venting frustration in the heat of the moment.

    Also, I love your quote about the problem with niceness. It perfectly expresses why I find so much of modern politics’ superficial rules of decorum pointless and suffocating.

    • Timmehh

      I don’t know. I find honesty to be needed and refreshing. However, I also find the method by which that honesty is delivered to be important as well. When speaking with people who are passionately against what you are for, I have found that throwing your opinion in their face or resorting to rude/holier than thou rhetoric gets us nowhere. That is how discussions turn into shouting matches. I am of the belief that when speaking to opponents who think so little of you, or believe you to be crazy, it is effective to disarm them with kindness; presenting your position in a respectful, clear, thoughtful, and honest manner. I have actually been able to have wonderful conversations with more people than I can count by doing this.

    • peach

      Jesus hated niceness too, I hear.

      • Oh, hey, it’s Exhibit A of my case!

        Timmehh, I plan on elaborating on this subject in a near-future post.

        • ProTruth2

          And then you’ll be doing one on how Jesus hates humility, right?

          • I like how you’re not even trying to avoid bearing false witness here, yet feel fit to lecture others on failing Christian morality.

  • thatdigiguy

    muchas perfectas, Kristen… I likes me some Ann, but inwardly, I cringed when she ranted that last bit about pro-life perspectives.

    The truth hurts.
    The truth is lonely.
    The truth usually sucks.

    But it’s still the truth.

    Are we ever going to get beyond the pettiness of politicizing everything? i fear not.
    Perhaps more folks will come along like yourself, slowly waking from the slumber of leftism, realizing that the lies you’ve been fed are just that, and begin to embrace ALL life as sacred, not just those who escaped the womb alive….

  • Basset_Hound

    I would be willing to accept a “rape exception” IF very strict criteria were set other than “we just have to take the woman’s word for it”, AND some very stringent restrictions were placed on abortion per se. However we are a long….long….way from getting there.

    If a legislature tries to pass even miniscule restrictions, we can be assured of two things. 1) The Feminoids will slobber and bawl like scalded dogs that “EEEVVVIIILLL white male lawmakers are trying to get their hands on my naughty bits and chip away at “women’s right to choose” and 2) that an active lib appointed judge will prevent implementation of the law until it is so shot full of exceptions and bypass provisions that it is worthless.

    So I’m suggesting a strategy. I would like to ask someone on THEIR side something like this. “Last spring we had our daughter’s wisdom teeth removed. The oral surgeon HAD to do an x-ray. He was required by law, not only to discuss complications that had the remotest possibility of occurring, such as her suffering nerve damage, or even dying as a result of the anesthesia and the surgery. He had to SHOW us the x-ray of the three molars that were blocked from emerging. It’s called Informed Consent and it’s standard procedure for every legitimate medical procedure. Why shouldn’t be standard procedure for abortion? Can you justify that position?” Then I would continue…”when my daughter was in middle school, the school had to have my permission to give her an aspirin or to take her to another school for a band competition. Why is it that, in many states all a girl has to do is spin a tale of woe to a judge to obtain a judicial bypass to have an abortion? I’m just wondering?”

    • First Citizen

      Right, even in Michigan when they tried to pass a large Pro-life bill that was sponsored by a woman, they blamed the bill on evil white men.

  • droidus

    Right. So you love Ann Coulter. You love someone who says stuff like: “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Nice.

    • First Citizen

      You are missing the fact that most of the time she is using crazy analogies to show the craziness of accepted Lib policies.

  • back-to-the-dark-ages

    sigh. Too many issues and stupid assumptions treated as fact to pick up on.

    Couple of issues though – google Savita Halappanavar and then justify being “100% pro-life, without exception’.

    Also, would love to hear your thoughts on the treatment of ectopic pregnancies – these don’t always end badly, up to 5% of continued ectopic pregnancies are viable.

    Do we legislate to protect the 5% of babies born, leaving 95% of suffering mothers to die? Or do we allow all ectopic pregnancies to be aborted allowing 1 in 20 babies to die unnecessarily?

    • jen

      I did google her as well as her cause of death which is sited as blood poisoning. Forgive me I can’t remember the spelling of the technical term. It seems to me that while it may be possible that her misscarrying her baby may have been the cause for her blood poisoning the question is not should they have given her an abortion but should they have run blood work and checked her for other things. Had they run the proper blood tests they should have come up with blood poisoning before it had gotten as far as it did. They could have still treated her with out aborting the baby. This is a very sad story and a good case for looking into hospital procedure for sure, but a cut and dried case in favor of abortion I think not. There are still unanswered questions with this case and untill it is known what all test and treatments were done you can’t blame a lack of abortion as the sole reason for death here.

      • back-to-the-dark-ages

        I understand your point but have discussed this with a GP friend to make sure I wasn’t talking out of my backside here. Septicaemia is not an uncommon complication of miscarriage and the e.coli may have been transmitted from the bowel. The point is, she was fully dilated, unnecessarily for 3 days which leaves her wide open to infection, and was clearly suffering from the symptoms of puerperal fever at least a full day before the foetus’s heartbeat stopped.(shaking, fever and collapsing).

        The baby’s heartbeat stopped several hours before she was even taken to an intensive care unit where they removed the baby. If it wasn’t the cause of septicaemia or particularly urgent that the foetus was removed, why would they carry out an invasive operation when she was extremely ill instead of waiting till she was stronger, then doing it?

        Personally, I believe abortion is not justified in virtually any abortions over 12 weeks and I can’t imagine anyone “wants” to have an abortion. However, I don’t want there to be a law that makes the above situation legal. It renders a woman to be nothing more than a passive carrier for a baby that has more personhood than she does.

        If a woman is unfit to be a mother, why should she be forced to bring an unwanted baby, who at this point has no thoughts, feelings, memories, into this overcrowded, violent world, just for both of them to suffer?

        If it’s against your religion, then don’t have an abortion. But why enforce your views on other people? Should we have a christian jihad to enforce our religious beliefs on the rest of the world too?

        • Julia

          You make some good points, and make a varitey of arguments. I will touch on a few.

          “If it’s against your religion, then don’t have an abortion. But why enforce your views on other people?”
          First of all, the belief that abortion is wrong is not based merely on religion, but on science. Science shows that life begins at conception, and since humans only reproduce humans, that life must be human. Therefore, abortion kills a human life, is wrong, or at least (since science doesn’t tell us what is right or wrong) as wrong as killing an adult human life.
          Secondly, people force their beliefs on people all the time. That’s what laws are. We believe things like rape, murder, theft, etc. are wrong, therefore we make laws that make these actions illegal. When we do this, we are forcing our belief that these actions are wrong on other people.
          Thirdly, you are forcing your belief that abortion is OK on the umborn child.

          “However, I don’t want there to be a law that makes the above situation legal. It renders a woman to be nothing more than a passive carrier for a baby that has more personhood than she does.”
          According to Ireland’s Medical Counsel, necessary medical treatment must be given to women, even if she is pregnant. Ireland is actually one of the safest places in the world for pregnant women, safer that countries such as Holland and Great Brittain where abortion is widely available.
          The details of the case haven’t emerged yet, but if they denied treatment to Savita, it appears to me that that would have been against the law.
          A woman is not any less a person than an unborn child; however you should never deliberately kill an innocent human person, if that is your purpose. (Removing a tube in an ectopic pregnancy is ok, for instance, because the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the child.)

          I have a few questions for you. You said you believe abortion after 12 weeks is virtually never justifiable. Do you think late-term abortions equate with infanticide, then? And if you do, are you doing anything to stop them? Do you think it is justifiable to vote for someone that supports what you equate to infanticide as opposed to someone who you perceive would merely force an inconvenience on mothers for nine months (I am not trying to trivialize the emotional hardship a pregnant mother can go through) ? (After the birth, the child can be adopted.)
          I am not asking these questions to attack you, but to provoke thought on these questions.

          • Basset_Hound

            Your sister blog has this to say….in a nutshell, they say that the delay in administering the antibiotics contributed to the woman’s death, not the lack of an abortion…


          • Back-to-the-dark-ages

            Absolutely, and you’ll notice that they delayed the antibiotics until…
            The foetus’s heart had stopped beating.

            if the foetus had been removed as soon as it was deemed non-viable and antibiotics given at that point, she may well have lived. But because of the legislation that outlaws abortion, her rights were secondary to the babies. She did not receive the appropriate care, whilst the baby was given every chance to live at her cost.

            If the law hadn’t been in place, this wouldn’t have happened.

          • Julia

            Actually, the law in Ireland requires that pregnant women be given the treatment they need to save their lives, even if that treatment may harm the baby. If that is what happened that is negligence on the part of the doctors, and against Ireland’s laws.

          • Basset_Hound

            REALLY???? How do you know that? Telepathy? ESP? I didn’t think those abilities don’t existed apart from the Sci-Fi cable channel. Maybe you should give the investigators in Ireland your insights, Dark Ages.

            Here’s another post from LifeNews. It suggests that the woman’s death occured because the doctors did not follow proper procedures in treating her condition NOT because of Irish laws. They urge


          • Basset_Hound

            REALLY???? How do you know that? Telepathy? ESP? I didn’t know that such abilities existed outside the realm of the Sci-Fi cable channel. You’ll have to get in touch with the Irish authorities to give them your insights!


            Here’s a quote from that article.

            Professor John Bonnar, then chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, spoke about the matter to the All Party Oireachtas Committee’s Fifth Report on Abortion, saying: “In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity.

            “In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.”

            So the gist of it is that is that until the authorities can determine if the failure to follow proper medical protocols cause both the deaths, politicizing this tragedy is wrong..


    • Basset_Hound

      Straw man alert!

      Abortion to save the LIFE of the mother was legal prior to Roe and will be legal if (God willing) Roe is overturned. Randy Alcorn, in his book “Pro Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” addresses the ectopic pregnancies specifically when he makes the point that if a woman’s pregnancy goes so horribly awry that, should no medical intervention take place, both lives would be lost, the life that can be saved is the one that should be saved. In the vast majority of cases an ectopic pregnancy will rupture long before the child reaches a point where he can survive outside the womb. Thus the goal for removing the pregnancy is to prevent the rupture, not kill the child.The National Right to Life Committee has maintained that although they believe abortion should be banned, there should be an exception to save the mother’s LIFE.

      • back-to-the-dark-ages

        Yes, normally I’d agree with you that it’s a straw man argument. Except, of course – in the case of this article. Key phrase is: ‘100% pro-life, without exception… If that makes me a pro-life badass, fine.’

        Not every ectopic pregnancy results in the death of the mother and/or child. In fact, it’s not always guaranteed that the pregnancy will spontaneously end until the tube ruptures (or PID etc sets in). Source is from an article from a pro-lifer who, like the OP is 100% pro-life without exception:

        Therefore, is ectopic pregnancy still a viable reason to terminate before you know for certain it’ll rupture and kill both mother and child? If you’re a pro-lifer can you gamble killing a baby on the odds that it MAY kill the mother?

        This is the point where I think it’s anything but a straw man – “NO EXCEPTIONS”, remember?

        • Basset_Hound

          I say yes. I think if the people involved decide NOT to throw the dice, and remove the child, I have no problem. This is a VERY RARE exception. There is a VAST difference between laws which allow for exceptions and laws built on exceptions. For example, the law would allow me to forcibly enter my neighbor’s house if I noticed it was on fire, and I wanted to rescue her and her children. This does NOT mean that because houses catch fire, and people are trapped inside, I’m free to break into my neighbor’s house and steal their new big screen TV.

        • In life-threatening situations, why does one party have to be actively killed? If two people will die without a blood transfusion, but you only have enough blood for one person on hand, would you give one the blood transfusion and dismember the other? So many people seem to have forgotten what MEDICINE is for.

          Here’s a hint: it’s to try to save people from disease and disability and “do no harm.”

          No one has ever been denied life-saving treatment. Ever. Not even before Roe. If both mother and child will die. Of course: deliver the child (by c-section if necessary), knowing full well the child will probably die, but do everything you can to save both lives; just like in every other situation.

  • Christine Lefebvre

    Awesome! It does my old pro-life activist heart good to know there are some “badasses” like you coming to take my place:)

  • burbeep

    wait…she’s being serious? i thought this was satire. how disappointing.

  • Mara

    Amen, sister.

  • I love how the pro-life, excuse me, anti-choice movement claims to have so much concern for “human babies” while blindly supporting foreign wars with chants to “kill em’ all” that murder, maim, and disfigure actual children and babies. Your sense of priorities is twisted and wrong hence why you have lost once again in the court of public opinion.

    The culture war started in 1965 is over. Conservatives lost.

  • StraightTalk

    On this one issue and only this issue Ann Coulter is wrong. I don’t care if a woman says she was raped by her own father and brother at the same time, if a she is calous enough to murder her own child through abortion then throw her ass in prison for 20 to 30 minimum. Some people in this country just don’t get it.

    • ProTruth2

      A lot of pro-lifers won’t admit that they want to see women who have had abortion jailed. Thanks for your honesty.

  • As a married man who has survived to my early middle age, I have learned that when 2 women are having a disagreement it is best if I retreat as quietly and hastily as possible if undetected or fake some sort of medical or other emergency to escape the potentially lethal situation. However, we are fans of both you and Ann Coulter and I have been involved in pro-life work for around 23 years and know we need both of you working together to protect the unborn, so I feel compelled to offer some form of mediation. I fully agree with what you have written including a more accurate assessment of the bumbling by the Senator candidates. I think they have highlighted the fact that because of the extreme bias of the idiotic liberal media we have to be extremely careful of what we say, far beyond our idiotic liberal friends (sorry idiotic liberal is redundant). Legislation in Canada was turned down because it included exceptions back around 1983 so there is no protection for unborn babies in Canada until they are fully born and umbilical cord cut. I would assume that Ann Coulter expressed frustration and I would hope that she does/would recognize the value of every human life regardless of how conceived. 2B continued . . .

  • I have been grappling over the years of how we do this and I do believe that the pro-abortion and liberal extremist view has been advanced incrementally over the years with ironic near heroic patience and perseverance. As Christians are we not also capable of patience and perseverance. We can’t work as if the next election will be the finish line, but have to get the next “first down”. I know someone who was conceived by rape and she is a wonderful person. (Even if she wasn’t wonderful, she’s still created in the image of God.) and I have been learning of others who were conceived by rape. I will not say that aborting people like that could ever be right. I would say that if we can reduce the number of babies killed in our stupid barbaric society would be a step in the right direction. I know of some of our awesome pro-life friends who forfeited their vote because Romney is not perfect, or not the high-enough standard that they wanted so they allowed the most evil American President in history back in office to promote more abortion and perversity and allow American heros to be killed by muslim terrorists. The next election is not the end-game, but hopefully a battle we can win in the culture war. Thank you for what you are doing. With thanks and prayers from the McNeelys

  • Well said. Thanks.

  • Cheryl

    I was conceived in rape. It is comments from ‘pro-life’ people like,
    Ann, who have made it very difficult for me to see the value in my own life. I have spent most of my own life believing that I have no right to life… that I have no value. How could I when even the pro-lifers adamently insist that I don’t? It has been a very long, painful road made harder by those who are willing to protect 99.9%, but not me. Thankyou, for being one of the few who are brave enough to defend my right to life. Thankyou for being brave enough to proclaim boldly that I do have value.

    • agkcrbs

      What a sad comment. Cheryl, your own value is like a free stack of money sitting on a table in front of you. Seize it. Claim it. It’s yours. Take it and add to it. Our self worth is a gift from heaven and belongs to us, not to others, unless for some bizarre reason we convince ourselves to surrender it to them. I fall against you on this policy question, and appeal to the Bible, among other things, for my view — but that doesn’t change you. It was God, not man, who allowed you to live, the same as with all of us who once clung to a fragile pulse in another person’s body, and once gasped for our first crucial breath. Then don’t count on your peers to validate you; we lack the authority anyway.

  • TimO515

    Very well done…except for the part about “Akin should have stepped down.” We should have supported him!. He is infinitely more prolife than the presidential nominee, and we supposed to blindly support him.