Displaying posts published in

April 2017

APRIL 19, 1943THE WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING

On April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German
troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving
inhabitants. By May 16, 1943, the Germans had crushed the uprising and
left the ghetto area in ruins. Surviving ghetto residents were
deported to concentration camps or killing centers.

Background

Between July 22 and September 12, 1942, the German authorities
deported or murdered around 300,000 Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. SS and
police units deported 265,000 Jews to the Treblinka killing center and
11,580 to forced-labor camps. The Germans and their auxiliaries
murdered more than 10,000 Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during the
deportation operations. The German authorities granted only 35,000
Jews permission to remain in the ghetto, while more than 20,000 Jews
remained in the ghetto in hiding. For the at least 55,000-60,000 Jews
remaining in the Warsaw ghetto, deportationseemed inevitable.

In response to the deportations, on July 28, 1942, several Jewish
underground organizations created an armed self-defense unit known as
the Jewish Combat Organization (Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa; ZOB).
Rough estimates put the size of the ZOB at its formation at around 200
members. The Revisionist Party (right-wing Zionists known as the
Betar) formed another resistance organization, the Jewish Military
Union (Zydowski Zwiazek Wojskowy; ZZW). Although initially there was
tension between the ZOB and the ZZW, both groups decided to work
together to oppose German attempts to destroy the ghetto. At the time
of the uprising, the ZOB had about 500 fighters in its ranks and the
ZZW had about 250.

The Bay of Pigs 56 Years Later When U.S. airstrikes could have destroyed a terrorist regime, freed a nation and altered history. Humberto Fontova

“Where are the planes?!” kept crackling over U.S. Navy radios exactly 56 years ago this week. The U.S. Naval armada (22 ships including the Carrier Essex loaded with deadly Skyhawk jets.) was sitting 16 miles off the southern Cuban coast near an inlet known as Bahia de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs). The question — bellowed between blasts from a Soviet artillery and tank barrage landing around him — came from commander Jose San Roman.

“Send planes or we can’t last!” San Roman kept pleading to the very fleet that escorted his men to the beachhead (and sat much closer to them than the U.S. destroyers Porter and Ross sat to the Syrian coast this week.) Meanwhile the Soviet artillery barrage intensified, the Soviet T-34 and Stalin tanks closed in, and San Roman’s casualties piled up.

By that date the terrorists who ran (and still run) Cuba had been operating terror-training camps for two years, had kidnapped, tortured and murdered dozens of American (to say nothing of tens of thousands of Cubans.) A year later they wantonly brought Western civilization a whisker from nuclear destruction. If foreign terrorists ever merited a MOAB, it was these– based 90 miles from U.S. shores.

Crazed by hunger and thirst the Cuban freedom-fighters had been shooting and reloading without sleep for three days. Many were hallucinating. By then many suspected they’d been abandoned by the Knights of Camelot.

That’s when Castro’s Soviet Howitzers opened up again, huge 122 mm ones, four batteries’ worth. They pounded 2,000 rounds into the freedom-fighters over a four-hour period. “It sounded like the end of the world,” one recalled later to your humble servant here.

“Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps broke and ran under a similar bombardment,” wrote Haynes Johnson in his book, the Bay of Pigs. By that time the invaders were dazed, delirious with fatigue, thirst and hunger, too deafened by the bombardment to even hear orders. But these men were in no mood to emulate Rommel’s crack Afrika Corps by retreating. Instead they were fortified by a resolve no conquering troops could ever call upon–the burning duty to free their nation from Castroism….

They were mostly civilian volunteers known as La Brigada 2506, an almost precise cross-section of Cuban society of the time. The Brigada included men from every social strata and race in Cuba — from sugar cane planters to sugar cane cutters, from aristocrats to their chauffeurs. But mostly, the folks in between, as befit a nation with a larger middle class than most of Europe.

Short on battle experience, yes, but they fairly burst with what Napoleon and Patton valued most in a soldier: morale. No navel-gazing about “why they hate us” or the merits of “regime change” for them. They’d seen Castroism point-blank.

Their goals were crystal-clear: firing-squads silenced, families reunited, tens of thousands freed from prisons, torture chambers and concentration camps. We see it on the History Channel after our GIs took places like Manila and Munich.

Well, in 1961 newsreels could have captured such scenes without crossing oceans. When those Cuban freedom-fighters hit the beach at the Bay of Pigs, one of every 18 Cubans suffered in Castro Gulag. Mass graves dotted the Cuban countryside, piled with hundreds who’d crumpled in front of Castro and Che Guevara’s firing squads. Most of the invaders had loved-ones among the above. Modern history records few soldiers with the burning morale of the Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters.

Camelot’s criminal idiocy of cancelling airstrikes made the Brigada’s lumbering B-26s easy prey for Castro’s jets and fast Sea-Furies — and the troops and supplies below them were even easier prey. It was a turkey shoot for the Castroites.

Op-Ed What’s the most dangerous country in the world to be female? I know firsthand Najia Karimi

Najia Karimi is executive director of the Humanitarian Assistance for the Women and Children of Afghanistan, a partner of the global women’s group Donor Direct Action.

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — I was born in Kabul, raised in Pakistan and returned home after the fall of the Taliban to work in what is now the most dangerous country in the world to be female.

My parents’ generation had much more freedom than I and the other girls in my family did, and the downward trend continues. Young girls today are even more limited in their choices than I was. In Afghanistan, 60% of us are forcibly married by age 16. Only 15% of our girls are educated, and fatwas have been issued in some regions banning girls from going to school at all. Women and girls are punished for any “immoral act” that “brings shame” to the family, including elopement or perceived sexual misconduct. Acid attacks, stoning, rape and murder are all deemed acceptable punishments when a man’s “honor” has been threatened.

Invasions by Russia and the United States, alongside the ever-present threat of the Taliban and other groups, has meant that Afghan girls and women are in danger both inside and outside our homes. And the situation is only getting worse. Women who try to change the system by entering politics are particularly at risk of being targeted with violence. There is almost nowhere safe for us to go, and when we try to make things better, we put our lives at risk.
There is almost nowhere safe for us to go, and when we try to make things better, we put our lives at risk.

Since unlike so many others I’ve had the benefit of an education, I’ve put my privilege to use by working for an Afghan women’s group that runs an emergency women’s shelter in Kabul. We provide a refuge for women and girls fleeing sexual or domestic violence.

Zarmina is one of the many girls who have sought our assistance. Now 14, she was only 2 years old when her mother sold her off to a 22-year-old Taliban member. Four years ago, he forced her to move in with him. Between then and last September, when she came to the shelter, Zarmina was given food only once a day and was raped on a regular basis. When we met her, she was ill and deeply traumatized.

We helped her get urgent medical treatment and support in the shelter. She soon went back to school, but with nobody else to support her, Zarmina is dependent on us. If she returns to her village, the Taliban will stone her to death.

Another girl, Mah Jabin, was 10 years old when she was handed over to a man who beat and raped her over the course of three years. In despair, she poured a gallon of gasoline over herself and lit a match. Her mother found her just in time and put the flames out. She spent a month in the hospital with life-threatening burns and lived with us for a year under continuous medical treatment. We helped her get a divorce and a warrant was issued for her husband’s arrest. She is now also back at school.

These are just two of the roughly 200 cases that we take on every single year.

Roger Franklin: Climate Clowns on Parade

This Saturday in Sydney traffic will be disrupted even more than usual by a gaggle of climateers, fussbudgets and nanny staters strutting their virtuous stuff in support of lots more taxpayer money for fighting climate change, amongst other sacred careerist causes. Here’s a guide to the stars of the show.
Generally speaking, there are two items of indisputable wisdom: your electricity bills are far, far higher than they should be and, far more important, take anything and everything John Hewson says with a giant truckload of salt. The news that the onetime opposition leader, the man who lost the “unloseable” election, is to be one of the star paraders at something called The March for Science serves as confirmation of both.

The march – marches, actually, as they are supposed to be held in all capital cities — will take place this Saturday is response to what organisers describe as “the need for stable investment in science, a commitment to higher levels of scientific literacy through education, open communication of scientific findings, and public policy to be guided by evidence.”

Translated, that amounts to something like this: ‘In the US, the Trump administration has announced its intention to flush the pipes of publicly funded alarmist nonsense, most particularly to do with climate change. Let us not see our well-connected mates suffer a similar fate here.’

Does that sound just a tad cynical? If so, consider the men and women of, er, science Mr Hewson will be joining at noon on Saturday in Sydney’s Martin Place for a stroll to Hyde Park: Some relevant biographic information is below each one.

Julie McCrossin (MC) – broadcaster, freelance journalist and facilitator.

The cancer memoirist, comedienne, look-at-me lesbian and former ABC compere set herself to thinking very deeply indeed and concluded that frakking for low-carbon gas will limit her opportunities to “walk in wild places.”

Do not laugh too loudly at that, as Ms McCrossin might conclude it is her saphism, rather than standard-issue luvvie silliness, which inspires such mirth and then perhaps file a complaint under Section 18C. She certainly doesn’t seem overly keen on free speech, having signed a group letter denouncing Bill Leak as a racist who needed to be investigated.

Well some free speech, anyway. When it comes to conservatives, she is proud as punch to pose with a portrait of Fred Nile’s severed head on a platter of vegetables.

Luke Briscoe – co-founder of Indigi Lab, an organisation established to provide education, training and opportunities for Indigenous communities in science, technology and innovation.

From a recent article on the Indiglab.com site, whose chief, Mr Briscoe, will be marching

“We want a future where Indigenous knowledge’s (sic) are the driving force behind science, technology and digital innovation as our science (sic) are 80,000 years old and built one (sic) sustainable practices and that knowledge is priceless but we need to reform the STEM education to be more reflective of our sciences and knowledge systems and also the community wants and needs.”

Dr Angela Maharaj – lecturer at the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre.

Dr Marharaj has co-authored some dauntingly serious papers to do with Pacific currents, but she also boasts of taking a special interest in making sure that schoolkids are inculcated with only the most correct thoughts about climate change. To this end she is a committee member of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanic Society’s outreach and education committee, which endorses some very curious programs and lesson plans for Australia’s tiddlers.

5 Things You Need to Know About Fox News Cutting Bill O’ Tyler O’Neil

On Wednesday afternoon, Fox News officially cut “The O’Reilly Factor” host Bill O’Reilly. This decision followed a New York Times story early this month detailing sexual assault lawsuits O’Reilly settled in the past.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox released in a statement.

New York Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported O’Reilly’s forthcoming demise, but the final decision still came as something of a shock. Here are five key points to the story.
1. Advertisers abandoned the show.

Shortly after the New York Times exposé, over twenty advertisers announced they were withdrawing ads from “The O’Reilly Factor.” These included Mitsubishi Motors, which spent about $2.1 million for ads on O’Reilly’s show in 2016, making it the show’s fifth-largest advertiser.

Fox News announced that it was working with advertisers, shifting their buys to run on other shows.

A few advertisers actually announced that they would not be withdrawing from the show, insisting that they were “evaluating” their media buys on the basis of ratings and reaching key audiences.
2. Viewers didn’t abandon the show.

“The O’Reilly Factor” averaged 3.71 million viewers over the five nights following the Times story, according to the Nielsen company. That actually represented a 12 percent increase over the 3.31 million viewers O’Reilly averaged the week before.

This particular show consistently got Fox News its best ratings, drawing almost 4 million viewers a night and generating more than $446 million in advertising revenue between 2014 and 2016, according to Kantar Media.

Indeed, 21st Century Fox recently extended O’Reilly’s contract for about $18 million a year. The host’s old contract would have concluded at the end of 2017.

Despite the scandal, O’Reilly continued to attract viewers.
20 Advertisers Boycott Bill O’Reilly’s Show Over Sexual Harassment Allegations
3. President Trump defended him.

Shortly after the Times exposé, President Donald Trump defended Bill O’Reilly — in an interview with The New York Times.

“I think he’s a person I know well — he is a good person,” Trump, who has appeared on O’Reilly’s show many times in the past, told the Times. The president insisted that the Fox host should not have paid the $13 million to settle cases involving five separate women who alleged O’Reilly sexually assaulted them.

“I think he shouldn’t have settled; personally I think he shouldn’t have settled,” Trump declared. “Because you should have taken it all the way. I don’t think Bill did anything wrong.”

In saying so, the president was echoing O’Reilly’s own defense. “Just like other prominent and controversial people, I’m vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity,” the Fox host declared in a statement. He noted that “in my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.”
4. O’Reilly took a “vacation” on April 11.

Despite the president’s defense and the loyal viewers, O’Reilly left the air after April 11, when he announced plans for a vacation. While he had planned to take the week off, his vacation was originally going to start later.

O’Reilly’s supporters alleged that the advertiser boycott was being driven in large part by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters and Mary Pat Bonner, a fundraiser with ties to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, liberal groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the Women’s March were calling for O’Reilly’s head shortly after the Times exposé.

Naturally, however, O’Reilly’s scandal followed a similar story about the former Fox News chairman and chief executive, Roger Ailes, who resigned last July. The fact that liberal groups pushed O’Reilly’s ouster does not disprove the allegations against him.

5. O’Reilly’s not giving up.

Despite the fact that Bill O’Reilly is finished with Fox News, his lawyer went on the offensive Tuesday night, threatening a release of “irrefutable” evidence that liberal organizations colluded to destroy the former Fox host.

“Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America,” declared O’Reilly’s attorney, Marc E. Kasowitz, in a statement. “This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O’Reilly for political and financial reasons.”

“That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable,” Kasowitz forebodingly declared.

If Kasowitz indeed possesses such evidence, it might behoove him to release it quickly. O’Reilly may be gone from Fox News, but it seems he won’t be going down without a fight.

WISE WORDS FROM SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON

https://pjmedia.com/video/sec-of-state-tillerson-says-obamas-deal-fails-to-achieve-the-objective-of-a-non-nuclear-iran/

While our President is beating about the Bush policies, Tillerson is on target….rskThe US Secretary of Stare on the threat of Iran’s “provocative actions” to the United States, Israel, and the world:
Sec. of State Tillerson Says Obama’s Deal ‘Fails to Achieve the Objective of a Non-Nuclear Iran’ By Nathan Lichtman

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is confirming our worst fears, saying that Iran is on the verge of becoming a major nuclear threat. He said, “The JCPOA [Obama’s Iran deal] fails to achieve the objective of a non-nuclear Iran. It only delays their goal of becoming a nuclear state. This deal represents the same failed approach of the past that brought us to the current imminent threat we face from North Korea. The Trump Administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran.” Now we wait to see what the administration will do to change our foreign policy…

Ernst: Trump’s Costly Trips ‘Bothering’ Some GOP Senators, Must Be Discussed By Bridget Johnson

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she and other GOP senators are questioning why President Trump is spending so much time away from the White House.

Trump has spent more than half of his weekends at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, including hosting Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. His son, Eric, defended the trips and 16 golf outings in 13 weeks of presidency as “a very effective tool” for the commander in chief: “If he can befriend people and find common respect, common ground and friendship – if you can have a good time together – then you are always going to see somebody in a very different light.” Membership dues at Mar-a-Lago have also doubled since Trump ascended to the Oval Office.

Judicial Watch, which tracked and slammed President Obama for $96 million in travel over eight years, said they would similarly scrutinize Trump’s travel, including the Mar-a-Lago trips that are estimated to run taxpayers about $1 million to $3 million each and could outpace costs of Obama’s total travel in one year. The Government Accountability Office told lawmakers last month that they would conduct a requested review of Trump’s travel costs, including examining whether adequate spaces exist at Mar-a-Lago to deal with classified information.

The GAO is also studying whether the Secret Service and Defense Department have mechanisms to rein in travel costs. CBS News reported last week that the Secret Service had spent $35,185 on golf cart rentals in Palm Beach before Easter weekend.

Trump, who was critical of Obama’s travel, hasn’t used the highly secure Maryland presidential retreat he dubbed “very rustic,” Camp David.

At a town hall in her home state Tuesday, Ernst was asked about the frequent Mar-a-Lago trips.

“I wish he would spend more time in Washington, D.C., as that’s what we have the White House for and we’d love to see more of those State Department visits in Washington, D.C., and I think it’s smart that he does business in Washington, D.C., so I’ve had those same concerns myself,” Ernst replied.

“I have not spoken to him about the Florida issue yet, but that is something that I think has been bothering not just me but some other members of our caucus,” the senator added. “So, I think that is going to be a topic of discussion that we have when we get back to Washington, D.C.”

On Turkey, Trump Catches Spring Fever By Andrew C. McCarthy

Amid reports of significant ballot-box stuffing, roughing up dissenters, and other electoral fraud, Turkey’s sharia-supremacist strongman, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, hammered the final nail in the coffin of his country’s democracy. Last weekend, he narrowly prevailed in a referendum that formally concentrates in the presidency the autocratic powers he had previously usurped.

Afterwards, Donald Trump called to congratulate him.

You read that right. The president of the United States called to congratulate a terror-supporting Islamist ruler on completing his country’s turn away from Western liberalism.

Five years ago, I wrote a book called Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy. It was largely about Erdogan and Turkey. That story needed telling in order to explain why, far from a democratic revolution, the so-called Arab Spring would result in the ascendancy of political Islam in all its classic totalitarianism. The point was that we knew how the story would end in the Middle East and North Africa because the same story had already played out in Ankara.

And so it did.

Erdogan had seized the reins thanks to a constitutional quirk ironically designed to keep Islamists out of power. Gradually — in many ways, brilliantly — he strengthened his hand until, finally, he succeeded in his goal of eviscerating the secular, Westward-leaning society forged by Mustafa Kemal — Atatürk — out of the Ottoman Empire’s post-World War I collapse.

Spring Fever presaged what happened last weekend. Though he was still prime minister at the time (mid-2012, the height of Arab Spring exuberance), I contended that Erdogan’s goal was “the adoption of a new constitution with a powerful presidency that Erdogan would occupy.” Thus, my rueful conclusion that “‘Islamic Democracy’ begins to sound a lot like Russian ‘democracy.’”

It was always sadly amusing that Western devotees of “Islamic democracy” pointed to “the Turkish model” as proof positive that their oxymoronic fantasy could become Middle Eastern reality.

Even in their rose-tinted telling, the Arab Spring was supposed to be a mass transformation from dictatorships to democracy. Turkey, to the contrary, was already a democracy when Erdogan took over in 2003. He represented a shift from a secular, pro-Western orientation to sharia supremacism. There never was an Arab Spring, but Erdogan is the Turkish Winter, transforming democracy into dictatorship.

Steadily, he accumulated power though starting from a position of weakness. He was shrewd, but the tea leaves were never hard to read. “Democracy,” he proclaimed, “is just the train we board to reach our destination.” Erdogan never saw democracy as a goal, never aspired to adopt a culture of liberty and the protection of minority rights. For him democracy was nothing but the procedural means — mainly, popular elections in a Muslim majority country — to the desired end of imposing sharia, Islam’s societal framework and legal system. “I am a servant of sharia,” Erdogan was wont to say when he was Istanbul’s mayor — though he preferred to refer to himself as the city’s “imam.”

As prime minister, his masterstroke was to exploit the con-job known as European integration. Erdogan knew that, for all their flowery rhetoric, Germany, France, and the rest had no intention of welcoming a Muslim country of 80 million into the EU. Moreover, as an Islamist in the Muslim Brotherhood mold, Erdogan despises the West and had no intention of conforming in order to join. To this day, he exhorts Muslims to integrate into the West but resist assimilation. Indeed, he has described Western pressure on Muslims to assimilate as a “crime against humanity.” When it comes to Europe, Erdogan’s long range plan is to extort its accommodation of Islamic norms, not to become a partner.

Palestinians: Hunger Strike or Smokescreen? by Bassam Tawil

It is an integral part of the Palestinian strategy to undermine, isolate, delegitimize and destroy Israel.

It is not only Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who is in trouble. Marwan Barghouti, too, knows better than to air dirty Fatah laundry. What, then, is to be done? The traditional diversionary tactic: Direct the heat towards Israel.

Stripped of its Western trappings, Barghouti’s “hunger strike” is actually a struggle between Abbas and yet another Fatah pretender to the throne. And once again, Israel — the state that supposedly so “mistreats” incarcerated Palestinian terrorists — takes the heat.

Palestinians have an old habit of settling internal scores by diverting their grievances and violence towards Israel. This practice is clear to those who have been monitoring developments in the Palestinian arena for the past decades. It is an integral part of the Palestinian strategy to undermine, isolate, delegitimize and destroy Israel.

Those less familiar with Palestinian culture and tactics, however, have difficulty understanding the Palestinian mindset. Officials in Washington, London, Paris and other Western capitals rarely meet the ordinary Palestinian, the “man on the street” who represents the authentic voice of the Palestinians.

Instead, these officials meet Palestinian politicians and academics from Ramallah — the “experts” who are actually accomplished con artists. Such Palestinians grasp the Western mindset very well, and use their understanding to twist Western officials any which way they want.

The Western reaction to the hunger strike declared on April 17 by Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails is a case in point. The strike was initiated by Marwan Barghouti, a senior Fatah official who is serving five life terms for his role in terror attacks against Israelis. Barghouti has been in prison for 15 years so far.

Remarkably, despite Barghouti’s long-term imprisonment, this is his first hunger strike, apparently despite the poor incarceration conditions that have supposedly driven him to this move. Or might there be some other factor behind Barghouti’s sudden acute discomfort?

The hunger strike is, in fact, completely unrelated to conditions in Israeli prisons. Rather, Barghouti’s hunger strike is directly linked to a power struggle that has long been raging inside his Fatah faction. More than a move against Israel, the hunger strike is aimed at Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas (who is also chairman of Fatah).

Is the “Right to Choose” Absolute? by Gerald R. McDermott

Gerald McDermott is Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School. He is the editor of The New Christian Zionism and author of Israel Matters.II

If there is agreement that a life is human, the individual’s right to choose is not final. The state has a responsibility to protect innocent life.
In other words, the decision in Roe v. Wade declares that the individual right to choose abortion is not absolute, but that there are times when the state can interfere in order to promote “its interest in the potentiality of human life.”

Imagine you are driving on a foggy night and you see a dark figure ahead. It could be a fallen branch. It might even be a little deer, or, God forbid, a little child. Do you keep on driving full speed and crash through it, or put on the brakes? If you think it might be a human person, either dead or alive, what should you do?

Most of us would say that even if we are uncertain, we should stop and check. We should give the benefit of the doubt to something that might be human, and, if it is, treat it with care.

I am sure that most everyone would stop and do everything he or she could to protect anything that might be human. But a recent article for Gatestone suggests that society has no obligation to interfere with a woman who chooses to get an abortion. The article concedes that question of when life begins is complex, and suggests that after the first trimester the question becomes more difficult. But it fails to distinguish between early and late abortions. The author criticizes “anti-abortion right-to-life advocates” who say that the state should sometimes step in:

“They do not want any woman to have the right to choose abortion for herself. They want to have the state choose for her — to deny her the right to choose between giving birth to an unwanted child and having an abortion.”

According to the article, the question comes down to who should make decisions about life and death — the pregnant woman or the “impersonal state.” Of course, conservatives agree that in most cases there should be individual freedom, particularly when it comes to very personal choices about pregnancy and children. But while conservatives differ on public policy for abortions in the first trimester and in cases of incest and rape (which according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute total less than one percent), they agree with some liberals that the state should protect life in the last trimester. Perhaps a majority of liberals, however, would say the state should never intervene on abortion, even when the baby is healthy and viable in the last trimester.

Liberals and conservatives generally agree that the state must intervene to protect innocent human life when it is threatened, and so should prosecute and punish murderers who take the lives of innocent children or adults. So, the individual’s right to choose to protect or end a life is not absolute. If there is agreement that a life is human, the individual’s right to choose is not final. The state has a responsibility to protect innocent life.