White lesbians in the Canton area are suing a sperm bank, because it sent them sperm from the wrong donor, a man who was...black. The Chicago Tribune reports:

Jennifer Cramblett, of Uniontown, Ohio, alleges in the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court that Midwest Sperm Bank sent her the vials of an African-American donor's sperm in September 2011 instead of those of a white donor that she and her white partner had ordered.

I've heard of sending your order back, but really....

After searching through pages of comprehensive histories for their top three donors, the lawsuit claims, Cramblett and her domestic partner, Amanda Zinkon, chose donor No. 380, who was also white. Their doctor in Ohio received vials from donor No. 330, who is African-American, the lawsuit said.

Cramblett, 36, learned of the mistake in April 2012, when she was pregnant and ordering more vials so that the couple could have another child with sperm from the same donor, according to the lawsuit.

Cramblett sued the Midwest Sperm Bank, based in Downers Grove, Illinois, for wrongful birth and breach of warranty – implying she considers black babies defective and would rather her daughter, Payton, had never been born– “citing the emotional and economic losses she has suffered,” the Tribune reports.

Ya see, they're not racist; they just don't want a black baby. “Because of this background and upbringing, Jennifer acknowledges her limited cultural competency relative to African-Americans and steep learning curve, particularly in small, homogenous Uniontown, which she regards as too racially intolerant,” her lawsuit says.

A lesbian couple has sued because the baby they asked for came out the wrong color. “When children are manufactured, you're bound to have a production breakdown,” said Dan Kennedy, CEO of Human Life of Washington.

But yeah, homosexual and transgender rights are totally the New Civil Rights Movement, or in the words of Attorney General Eric Holder, “the civil-rights issue of our day.” (I'm sure the kyriarchy system has some answer for how these conflicting victimologies stack up.)

Martin Luther King Jr. died for this, huh?

This provides an interesting counterpoint to pro-abortion arguments. Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said this winter, "Ninety-nine percent of the whites who are sitting in here now, if their daughter got pregnant by a black man, they are going to make their daughter have an abortion. They ain't gonna let her have the baby.”

When he asked a white pro-life woman what she would do if her daughter brought home a child fathered by a black man, she replied, “Let it run around in my living room and enjoy it as my grandchild.”

Pro-lifers would keep – no, would cherish – an “unintended” child of whatever background. This lesbian couple is unhappy about the child they ordered and, realistically, had no other way to create. Despite this, and the fact that abortion disproportionately affects minorities, pro-lifers are always branded as “racist.”

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

Pro-life-and-family MP Harold Albrecht submitted a hard-hitting response to the Toronto Star last week after columnist Heather Mallick wrote a piece extolling Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for his radical stance on abortion.

“I believe that if Heather Mallick was exposed to suction powerful enough to tear her body into pieces, she would consider it a form of torment,” the Kitchener MP wrote.

But Albrecht said Tuesday that not only was his response not published, the Star did not even acknowledge his submission.

It’s easy to see why anyone with the remotest respect for life and a bit of common sense would become outraged after reading Mallick’s column, titled “Trudeau gets abortion policy exactly right.”

Mallick smugly praises in her piece what she calls “women’s rights,” considering abortion as one of the foremost among these rights since it “backs the equal relationships.”

In a moment of extreme irony, Mallick suggests that those who oppose equal relationships support the “powerful tormenting the weak,” a relationship that she says is “no longer considered socially acceptable,” forgetting that this is precisely the situation of the defenseless pre-born who are targeted for abortion by the strong and powerful.

Albrecht was quick to pick up on the irony. Abandoning the Star, he turned to Facebook to publish his complete response.

Re:  Trudeau gets abortion policy exactly right: Mallick

Columnist Heather Mallick gets it wrong when she states that “relationships that used to be massively unequal, with the powerful tormenting the weak, are no longer considered socially acceptable.” I wish she was correct, but the glaring exception remains the unborn.

I believe that if Heather Mallick was exposed to suction powerful enough to tear her body into pieces, she would consider it a form of torment. Similarly, if Mallick was cut into pieces without anesthetic, I’m pretty confident she’d be feeling tormented.  Those are the typical procedures used during a first-trimester abortion.

Unborn children feel pain. Fetal anesthesia is routinely administered when surgery is required to ensure the health of unborn children; just not when they are killed. They have no voice; no input on whether or not they will be killed.

There is no equality there.

Harold Albrecht, MP
Kitchener-Conestoga

Albrecht expressed contempt for the Star’s decision to not publish his response in his Facebook post.

“When Canada’s largest-circulation daily newspaper is willing to print these misfacts and to let them stand uncorrected, is it any wonder so many Canadians are misinformed on this issue?”

Monday’s report by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommending IUDs (as opposed to, say, abstinence) as the first line of defense against pregnancy for girls under 18 seems to have ruffled more than just pro-life, pro-chastity feathers. 

Pro-choice blogger Jenna Karvunidis, who describes herself as “a feminist mom of a whole brood of lady babies,” wrote an article (warning: strong language) for Chicago Now slamming the decision.

“IUDs as a best option to prevent pregnancy was published in a pediatrics journal,” Karvunidis wrote in disbelief.  “Kids. Babies. Using IUDs. Look, I know teens are going to have sex, but an IUD is just a bad idea for a young girl. It won't be happening with any of my three daughters.”

While Karvunidis assured her liberal readers that her opinion “isn't about being anti-sex or not having realistic attitudes about teenage behavior,” she said the IUD is simply too dangerous to give to young girls.

For one thing, young girls’ unfamiliarity with their bodies may make it difficult for them to know if the device is correctly positioned at all times. “IUDs require monitoring that I do not trust a minor to execute,” Karvunidis wrote.  “Maintaining an IUD is senior-level birth control.”

Karvunidis also worries that the IUD may lull girls into a false sense of security when it comes to the risks of sex, because although it may prevent babies, it won’t protect against STDs.  “IUDs do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases,” she wrote.  “There is no abortion for HIV.”

“I'd rather my daughter came to me and said she was pregnant than tell me she contracted HPV that can lead to cervical cancer which can lead to infertility,” she added. “I may not want to be a grandma at 40, but I'd like the job eventually.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Karvunidis also noted that IUD insertion can be severely painful even for adult women who have already had their uterus stretched out by pregnancy – let alone for young girls who haven’t even had sex yet, as the AAP recommends.

“Getting an IUD hurts!” she wrote. “IUDs are notorious for causing cramps and/or ovarian cysts that can burst and cause major abdominal spasms. A few days after I got my Paraguard I thought I was in labor again. I had just had my third baby six weeks before and I was in the exact same pain. At least with labor I got a baby out of the deal. With the IUD I just get . . . nothing?”

“IUDs are supposed to get more comfortable after each baby,” she added. “A teenage girl is going to howl like a poltergeist as that thing settles in.”  She added that given how unsatisfying sexual intercourse is for most teen girls, the IUD is “just for the guy,” giving him peace of mind while he uses his partner for his own pleasure.

Last but not least, Karvunidis touched on the serious risks associated with the devices. 

“IUDs themselves can cause permanent damage and infertility,” Karvunidis wrote.  “Sure, it's uncommon, but so is being a redhead. IUDs can perforate the uterus or cause uterine scarring. Imagine your daughter never having a baby because of a decision she made under your care.”  She further noted that one of the risks of the device is that after it tears through the uterus, it can migrate, causing serious damage to other internal organs.”