The website of American Women's Services advertises that some of their abortionists "have garnered national presence on syndicated programming (newspapers, radio and television programs) distributed throughout the country", but I have a feeling that when they wrote that they weren't referring to the coverage of the murder charges brought against two of their abortionists recently.

Steven Brigham and another of American Women's Services abortionists,  Nicola Riley were charged with murder. The law that they were charged under is usually used to prosecute people that harm the mother of a baby and, in the process, kill the child. Since the intent of the person killing the child isn't specified in the law, it only makes sense that it would apply to abortionists who intend on killing the child.

The attorneys for Brigham and Riley said prosecuting them under this law was "far-fetched". Nothing could be further from the truth. It applies perfectly. If a person is killed in one instance of the crime, then a person is killed in the other as well. Whether or not that child inside its mother is considered a human being doesn't depend on whether or not the mother wants the child. If I don't like somebody I don't suddenly gain the right to kill that person. That would be absurd, and the argument from the abortionist's attorneys claiming that it's "far-fetched" to view the law this way is equally absurd.

When the charges were dropped, Stuart Simms and Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum,  attorneys for the abortionists, made this statement concerning Nicola Riley:

Tonight Dr. Riley and her family have the joy of knowing that her liberty is no longer in jeopardy, but that joy is tempered by the knowledge that her reputation and livelihood have been permanently and wrongly damaged by an ill-considered prosecution...

What about the liberty being denied to the babies killed by her? Why are they worth any less than her? Because they are small? Because their mothers choose to have them killed instead of allowing them to be adopted by the millions of people waiting to do just that? Where is their liberty?

(Photo: The Cecil Whig, Adelma Gregory-Bunnell / AP)

I haven't seen October Baby yet but I've watched the trailer and it looks like it's going to be a pretty good movie. I feel like it's going to have a very specific sort of audience, but it doesn't have to.

I really don't understand why the movie is being promoted quite the way that it is. To me October Baby seems like the type of film that has an appeal to anyone, because it's a great story no matter what you think about abortion. It could be the perfect opportunity to share a message in an entertaining an meaningful way with a general audience, but I don't think that's going to happen. From the end of the trailer to the movie posters to the quotes used in advertisements, there is just so much of a "this is a pro-life movie for pro-life people to watch" feel. I mean, when a movie trailer ends with "Choose Life" it makes everyone that sees it think of a sign that somebody would be holding up in front of an abortion clinic. They'll probably see it and either think it's a political thing and not a "real" movie so there's no reason to see it, or they'll love it and jump at the chance to see it, but only because they already support life. There's nothing wrong with pro-life folks going to see it, but I think the real potential of the movie could be seen if it was not promoted in such an out-right "pro-life movie" sort of way.

I do not know if this is real or not, but from what little I do know I think it might be. If you happen to know more please say so in the comments.