The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “women’s rights”

21 Apr 2012

Dog Dismembers Two Month Old Child; Abortionist Dismembers Two Month Old Fetus – What’s The Difference?

Here’s a sad and disheartening story out of Summerville, S.C. – a two month old child has been killed, dismembered, by a family dog.  It’s a tragedy that tugs at the hearts of any parent.  But – why is it when, instead of a family dog, or wild animal, doing the killing, it is an abortionist doing the killing, and the dismembering of a fetus –  that kind of a story does not horrify the same people who become horrified and saddened over the death of a two month old child?  In other words, what is the difference between a “family dog” killing and dismembering a two month old child, and an abortionist killing and dismembering a two months old fetus, or a fetus at any stage of development?

When a pet, however tame, in a moment of “wildness” injures or kills a child – isn’t it routine to “put down” (kill) that pet?  We would never consider doing that to an abortionist, would we?  The animal, on the one hand, which commits the injury, or killing, of a child does not do so with premeditated  intent or knowledge that in doing so it will ultimately harm the child.  The abortionist, on the other hand, when it kills and dismembers the fetus from the womb, absolutely does do so with premeditated intent and with the knowledge that in doing so they will ultimately be causing the death of the unborn child.

Why is it moral to kill the animal for doing something it does not know, does not have the capacity to know, is going to result in the injury or death of the child, or person, it attacks?  And – why is it moral to allow an abortionist to do something to a fetus, an unborn child, knowing, and having the capacity and intelligence to know, full well that what they are doing is killing the fetus?

The same people who would argue the position of “Well, the child is two months old and already out of the womb”, and who use that as reason enough to justify the difference are the same people who support partial birth abortion.  In other words, does a child have to be fully out of the womb before it is afforded legal protection and status as a human being?  And is that why supporters of abortion so vigorously support any method of killing the unborn child, even partially delivering it; then killing it; then removing the rest of the corpse from the womb?

There is only one difference between a dog, any animal, injuring and/or killing a child/person and an abortionist killing an unborn child in/partially out of the womb.  The abortionist is doing it knowingly, intentionally and with the full knowledge of what they are doing will result in the killing of the unborn child.  (The abortionist is also doing it knowing they will be paid for their services.)

Why do we tolerate the abortionist killing the unborn child?  Why do we “put down” the animal for doing, ultimately, the same thing as the abortionist?  The abortionist, or the animal – which is the more ravenous and wild?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, animal rights, animals, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
17 Apr 2012
1 Comment

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

Related articles
Posted in abortion, feminism, politics, Right To LIfe, war on women, women, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
16 Apr 2012
1 Comment

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, feminism, healthcare, politics, women and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12 Apr 2012
4 Comments

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, politics, religion, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
26 Mar 2012
2 Comments

Why I Am Also A Feminist

(A response to “Why I am A feminist“)

I’m also a feminist.

No one needs to shave off any unnecessary body hair, engage in sex with men or women, or at all, to be a feminist.  Whether or not one wears a bra is not an issue (although from a conservative standpoint a well-fitting bra which doesn’t interfere with mobility or health is appropriate).

Liberals, and liberal women, do not own the title to feminism.  Nor do they control the ideas for which feminism is based.  Feminism does not come in one package, nor is it distributed by one manufacturer.  Feminism is also built upon the premise that women deserve, and have the right, to be treated equally, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and to not ever be treated by men as unequal in that respect.  So why then, do liberal feminists feel they need more laws in place to protect their rights that are already guaranteed?  Is it that some women, liberal feminists, will not be satisfied until they have more rights them men?

These are some ideas of what feminism means to me:

  • Women and men must value manhood and womanhood equally, whether it is built into the law or not; and not wait for, or rely on, such silly laws to be passed before equal value is applied.
  • Men respecting women enough not to devalue them by engaging in sex with women outside of marriage.  Women respecting themselves enough not to give into the lusts of men who only want to have sex with them.
  • Women controlling their own bodies by remaining celibate until marriage.  And men doing the same.
  • Instilling the value of abstinence until married in schools, and equal respect for the opposite sex.
  • Women standing together to protect their bodies and control their bodies from being violated by men.
  • Men standing with women on this issue.
  • Men and women realizing the importance of equally caring for children enough to put aside petty arguments as to which one, the man or the woman, will stay at home to raise the children while the other is at work.
  • But also, women realizing the heightened importance of women staying at home raising children in their early years, even if that means giving up a job for the time being.
  • Men accepting that women are not objects, sexually or otherwise.  Women accepting that sex does not liberate or free them, or make them equal to, or with, men any more than sex liberates men.  And that having sex with multiple partners, whether you are a man or a woman, cheapens yourself and your gender.
  • Men accepting that having sex with women outside marriage hurts both men and women.
  • Men accepting that should a child be created out of wedlock it is his responsibility to marry the woman and provide monetary support for her, her pregnancy, and the child if she chooses to keep the child.  Women accepting that if a child is created out of wedlock it is her responsibility to carry the child full term and give birth to it, and marry the man if she will not give the child up for adoption so that the child is not deprived of life.

Today, we have indeed reached a critical point where it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between what is meant by respect for women, and what it means to be a true feminist, and whether the two are compatible.  There are no “rights” that are being infringed upon or being taken away from any woman in America that in any way cheapens women, disrespects women, relegates women to second class citizens or makes them any less equal to men under the U.S. Constitution.  Men and women are different, of course.  But that they are in no way makes one gender superior over another, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are concerned, or where the Constitution guarantees the same rights to all Americans regardless of gender.

However, is the sole reason for, and definition of, feminism to protect a woman’s right to abortion, which is what liberal feminists are decrying, in response to the pro-life movement, as a “war on women”?  America has never gotten over Roe vs. Wade, nor will it.  But, when it is overturned, will its supporters get over that ruling?  Abortion is nothing remotely related to the struggles of suffrage (women’s right to vote) or interracial marriage.  Abortion has always been the taking of innocent life from the womb.  Hence, the reason why millions of women, who are pro-life, reject the mantra of liberal feminism while at the same time they embrace the idea of feminism.

On the other hand, why are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, both of whom are very strong, independent women so vilified by other women who call themselves feminists?  And why do some men refer to these, and other conservative women, as c***s?  And, although now women are beginning to speak out, why did it take Rush Limbaugh Calling Sandra Fluke a slut to energize women into demanding their own male supporters stop the misogynist attacks against women?  Why is it that if you are a strong and independent conservative woman, somehow that makes you a traitor to all women, in the eyes of feminists?

Is being a feminist all about having sex, as much sex as you want, with as many partners as you want?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for access, free if possible, to birth control and contraception so one might engage in sex?  Is being a feminist all about fighting for the right to retain access to the types of birth control and contraception that end an unintended pregnancy should that be the result of said sex?  For men – is respecting women all about having premarital sex with women, and respecting her right to kill the child you both creating accidentally?  For women – is respect for yourself all about your right to kill your unborn child so you can continue to engage in sex with men and not have to worry about leaving your place of work to raise a child?  Is that what is meant by women’s “liberation”, “independence”, “freedom” and “control”?  How does behavior which is out of “control” make women more in “control” of themselves and their bodies?

Obviously there is more to being a feminist than that.  Many feminists truly hate men, and would like to seem men as the gender relegated to second class citizenship, or eliminated altogether.

Men absolutely ought to stand up for women’s rights.  Such as a woman’s right to say “no” to sex.  However, what are “women’s rights” if they are not the rights already guaranteed in the Constitution?  That men would have such disrespect for women by using them for their own sexual pleasure, and then standing up for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy so she can go on engaging in that type of behavior does nothing to provide women with the knowledge she is truly equal to men.  What it does do is get men, and women, off the parenthood hook.  In the meantime, and unborn child has lost its life for the cause of feminism and “women’s rights”.

Women’s rights are indeed not just a woman’s issue.  But if abortion, if access to birth control and contraception (the latter of which no conservative objects denying to women), if fighting for that to remain a “woman’s right” is what feminism is centered around, how does that help to end rape, discrimination in the workplace, repression and the real war on women, and where real violence is being waged against women, throughout Islamic strongholds around the world?

If respect for women by being pro-abstinence and pro-life is not a feminist cause or issue, or concern; if “liberation” and “freedom” are only centered around sex and forcing taxpayers to pay for either preventing an unintended pregnancy or for the abortion if that is what results; if feminists define “controlling” their own bodies not by restraining men or themselves but by engaging in behavior characterized with being more out of control and dangerous; if feminism must be, and can only be, defined by being pro-abortion; if pro-woman can only be defined as men supporting a woman’s right to abortion – there may indeed at the end of all that be equally.  But that equality comes at the expensive of equally cheapening and degrading both men and women and lowering the overall standards, value and quality of life itself.

I am not a feminist, nor would I ever accept as being a feminist the notion that taking pride in women means taking the woman you knocked up to the nearest abortion clinic.

I am a feminist because I respect human life, including women.  I am a feminist because I accept that women don’t deserve to have any man force themselves on any woman.  I am a feminist because I accept that women have a right to their bodies, to their virginity, to wait until they are married before they give themselves away.  I am a feminist because I accept that women are not mere objects of sexual delight and pleasure, but are fully capable and functional human beings with the ability to be as smart and as intellectual as men.  I am a feminist because I accept that men do not have a right to control or dominate, to repress or oppress, to enslave or subjugate, to beat, torture or kill women for any reason.  I am a feminist because I accept that women play an integral and most necessary role in society.  I am a feminist because I accept equal rights for men and women are guaranteed through the U.S. Constitution, not through how many opportunities women have in engaging in sex with men, or whether the sex women have is evenly, equally distributed with how many times men are having sex with women.

That is the feminism I stand, and stand up, for.  Will you do the same?

Related articles
Posted in feminism, healthcare, politics, war on women, women, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
07 Mar 2012
10 Comments

Feminists Complaining About The “War On Women” Ought To Keep Their Mouths Shut

The so-called “war on women” supposedly being waged by men (conservative men) like Rush Limbaugh is baseless, without merit, and extremely shallow, self-centered and just plain BS, and just as low and calculated as what Sandra Fluke is trying to do to Georgetown University by demanding it provide free contraception.  If these pathetic worthless feminists want to see a real war on women – look here!  Some American women, it seems, are just too spoiled, and have been so, rottenly, all theirs lives, to see how tremendously well off they are living in America, being Americans – and not living elsewhere, and being something other than Americans, like subjugated, dominated, repressed and oppressed, and controlled by men in a real war on women.

What is going on in Afghanistan against women, by its own government is a true war on women that even conservatives would be, and are, appalled at.  Real men, and certainly American men, do not treat women like they do in Afghanistan or anywhere else in Islamic controlled societies.  And an American government, even run by staunch conservatives, would never uphold the vulgar, demeaning anti-women rules and laws that President Karzai has just agreed to.  What Karzai has accepted, solely in order to appease the Taliban, which is gaining renewed strength in Afghanistan, is 100% unconstitutional in America.

The “code of conduct” issued Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women’s rights.

Among the rules: Women should not travel without a male guardian and women should not mingle with strange men in places like schools, markets or offices. Beating one’s wife is prohibited only if there is no “Shariah-compliant reason,” it said, referring to the principles of Islamic law.

In America, the war conservatives are waging is a war to regain the respect both for women and for life itself.  One would never know that listening to the MSM, or any liberal outlet like the Arianna Nation, The Daily Kos or even The Daily Beast.  Conservatives do not support any laws that allow husbands to beat their wives, keep their daughters out of school and illiterate, marry them off to the highest bidder or to settle a family disgrace.  They do that to women and girls in Afghanistan and most everywhere else in Muslin dominated societies.  Sharia law allows for that – which is another reason to fight to keep such barbarism as Sharia law out of American courts, and out of America itself.

Sharia law allows for, condones and sanctions the legal mistreatment of women and girls.  Where in the American Constitution does it allow for that?  Where in American law are women not equal to men?

When liberal feminists cry “war on women”, what they are really crying about is any restrictions on the right to kill an unborn child in the womb, which, if it is allowed to live, dooms a woman to motherhood, and keeps her out of the work force.  Compare the so-called “war on women” in America to the real war on women in Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islam reigns.  The paltriness, the feeble-mindedness, the gall these liberal feminists have in calling conservatives anti-woman because we are pro-life.  It’s all to distract from their own culture of death, anti-male agenda.  The “war on women” liberal feminists purport exists, if it is anything, is a cultural war against trashiness, sleaziness and decadence itself, not a “war on women”.

Conservatives fight to ban abortion in most cases, except to save the life of the mother.  How is that anti-woman?  We also fight to ensure religious institutions are not forced to dispense services that go against their religious objections.  How is that anti-woman?  We fight to remove “safe” sex education in public schools because to teach anything other than abstinence only is a complete act of betrayal between the teacher/adult and the student/child.  How is that anti-woman?  And yet, for that, liberal feminists call us sexist, anti-woman and misogynist – all because we care about the lives of unborn children, and the lives of impressionable teenagers (both male and female) and we don’t want to see them led down a path of moral destruction – which liberal feminism, and its dogmatic mantra does.

Women and girls are being brutally beaten, tortured and killed all over the world under Islam in a real war on women, and garbage like Terry O’Neill, Cecile Richards, Nancy Pelosi and all your usual liberal feminist suspects feel as though they are second class citizens living in a past age where they have no rights, no voice, no control over their bodies because conservatives fight to ban abortion.  Women like that, who hold those views, exceeding arrogance as they are, ought to keep their mouths shut and look at what is going on in the rest of the world.  The Taliban and radical Muslims aren’t the only ones waging a war on women.  Disgusting, despicable, repulsive liberal feminists are the ones waging a war on women, and what it means to be a woman.

And whatever “war on women” liberal feminists have manufactured and created out of the nothingness that has replaced the area that once held their brains, pales in comparison to the war being waged against women and girls in Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan women and girls do not have any rights at all, except the right to be beaten, tortured, raped, sold and killed by their husbands and other male family members.  What conservative advocates for anything remotely similar to that for women in America?

War on women in America?  What war?

Related articles
Posted in politics, war on women and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
01 Mar 2012
6 Comments

Sandra Fluke: Call Her A Slut, Call Her Round-Heeled – But Don’t Call Her As A Credible Source Of Information

Sandra Fluke is the young “lady” at the center of so much controversy surrounding her blunt testimony about the “need” for birth control and contraception, and why we the taxpayers ought to pay for it, and for her and anyone else to have as much sex as they want.  The issue is not whether or not Sandra ought to be having sex – from a moral point of view she shouldn’t.  Never mind that, for the moment.

Sandra is complaining that the cost of contraception is preventing her from having sex, and others as well.  Rather than take on a second job, presuming she has one job under her belt already, she is addressing lawmakers on Capitol Hill in an attempt to sway them (we the taxpayer) into paying for her promiscuity and sexual escapades.  The crux of her testimony is that she is being denied as many sexual encounters as she wants because she cannot afford the cost of the contraception for each individual encounter.  So, what to do about that?

That anyone would be offended when Sandra is rightfully called a slut shows how much we have devolved as Americans.  Would anyone have sat before congress fifty years ago and cried to its members about how unfair it is that with contraception being so expensive, having sex has become a luxury few can afford?  Of course not.  And although there were women of ill repute back then, they at least had sense enough not to air their dirty laundry to members of congress.

Sandra is no role model – or is she?  Would you want your daughter to emulate Sandra?  Would you hope your son would fall in love with a Sandra Fluke?  Just how many sexual encounters, and with how many partners, does Sandra desire to be with before she gets married?  Well, if we have to pay for her contraception, we have a right to know all the details, don’t we?

You might be asking, what was Sandra even doing at this hearing?  This was a hearing, after-all, on Obama’s contraception mandate – a law that would force Catholic and religious institutions to provide birth control, contraception, and pregnancy ended services against their moral and religious values and convictions.  Sandra was denied a seat in an earlier hearing.  This was then a make-up, for Sandra.  So – should religious institutions be forced to pay for contraception because some of its students are hornier than others, and their extra-curricular activities are draining their wallets?

Sandra is making a mess of “women’s rights”, and she probably doesn’t even know it.  Her arrogance, her condescending attitude showed America that liberal feminists are weak, pathetic and small-minded; the lack of anything remotely intelligent in her argument showed America that liberal feminists are not smart enough to debate, and when they do they revert back into playing the victim card.  In other words, it’s not Sandra’s fault she can’t afford the cost of contraception – it’s the high cost of college tuition which is draining her bank account.  If only the “evil” Republicans would give her more grant money for college, and if only “evil” Republicans would give her money for contraception, she could afford the high tuition costs and have all the sex she wanted.  But because Republican lawmakers, who are predominately male, hate Sandra because she is a woman, Sandra is therefore forced to succumb to the terrible burden of either having to pay for her own contraception, or to give up some of the sex she thought she had a Constitutional right to have, and to have the taxpayer pay for.

This is how liberal feminists think.  They had it real easy in the 90’s under Bill Clinton.  Since then, their fantasy world has come crashing down upon them as waves and waves of new conservatives win in local, state and national elections across America, and begin to implement common sense legislation – like paying for ones own contraception and not demanding taxpayers pay for it, or forcing religious institutions into becoming pimps.

What else has changed, which may be a shock to Sandra, and all liberal feminists, is how much more difficult it is for them to simply shout “women’s rights”, or “women’s health” or “right to privacy” and have everyone fall into line behind them.  Because when they bring up such slogans, what they are really talking about is abortion and the killing of an unborn child – and America is wise to their shenanigans.  At least, wiser than say ten or fifteen years ago.

Liberal feminists are not talking about, not fighting for, contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy from occurring.  Liberal feminists want the contraception which ends the pregnancy after it has resulted and a human being has been created.  There is a vast and fundamental difference between the two kinds of contraception, and it is for the latter liberal feminists are demanding taxpayers pay for, and religious institutions cover and provide services for against their religious convictions.  Nobody is trying to take away birth control or contraception which is intended to prevent a pregnancy.  But one would never know that listening to the MSM, or getting their news from HuffPost, Daily Kos, or any liberal media outlet which reports propaganda rather than facts.

As much of a flout and a floozy as Sandra is, Sandra Fluke was the best liberal feminists could do.  If all she could come up with as to why the contraception mandate is a good thing, and why it ought to remain law, is so she can engage in as much free sex as she wants, and not have to pay a penny for it, or for the abortions – what does that tell you about the state of liberal feminism in 2012?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, contraception, healthcare, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
24 Feb 2012
5 Comments

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 8: Contraception,Terri Schiavo And Liberals Who Devote Themselves To The Culture Of Death

Michelle Goldberg, in her Daily Beast piece, proves that liberals have an absolute love affair with death as she compares the fight for a woman’s right for contraception with that of the fight Terri Schiavo‘s husband (Michael) waged to end her life, after many years in a vegetative state.  Liberals have no respect for life.  That includes pro-abortion women (and men) who demand a right to access contraception (free if at all possible) which is intended to end the life of an unborn child already created in the womb, and Michael Schiavo who demanded the right to remove his wife’s feeding tubes and let her die of starvation and dehydration.

Michael won his battle, despise the pleas from Terri’s parents who begged Michael to relinquish his rights over Terri to them.  It has always been troubling as to why he never did.  Michael had insisted all along Terri had once told him that if she was ever to become in such a state of being she would not want to live like that.  However, there was never any actual proof Terri said this.  Just Micheal’s word as her husband.  And because husbands and wives have certain rights in regards to how their spouses are dealt with in such situations, spouses can legally, and literally, make life and death decisions for each other when and if there is not already a living will, or some form of documentation left by either spouse to let the other, and the law, know exactly how they wish to be treated when they can no longer speak, or think, for themselves.

What has always been troubling about Michael and his attitude towards Terri is that it is common knowledge Michael wanted to remarry.  He couldn’t do that so long as Terri was still alive and while he was still legally, in the eyes of the law, her husband.  And that is the most damning, the most disturbing nuance of this whole battle that, for some weeks, surrounded Terri Schiavo.  Her own parents were willing to become her legal guardians, thereby removing Michael from any legal responsibility as her husband – and he could have divorced her as well, paving the way for him to remarry the woman he was seeing while Terri lay in a vegetative state.  That would have ended the drama which played on the news for all the days and weeks this case made national headlines.

Michael didn’t take that opportunity.  He didn’t choose life.  He opted for her death.  And the speculation that surrounded him then, as to why he didn’t, still persists and swells to this day.  Was Michael Schiavo in some way the cause his wife’s condition that left her in a vegetative state for so many years?  And would Terri be able to relate some type of incriminating information against Michael to her parents, and police, if she ever woke from her vegetative state?  Michael has never been able to completely answer why he simply didn’t give up his rights as her husband, and legal guardian, and allow Terri’s parents to assume responsibility.

We can not call Michael a murderer outright because that would be both slander and libel.  But the insinuation, the innuendo, the implication and the accusation is nonetheless embedded within the thought.  Terri did not need to die, she did not have to die, and whether or not she wanted to die is speculative at best.  The same is true with unborn children.  They do not need to die, they do not have to die, and would they want to die any more than Terri would have wanted to die because, as in the case of unborn children, their mothers do not wish to give them life?

Terri might still be alive today.  With medical advancements, she might even have improved.  But because her life was ended in such a brutal, sadistic and inhumane way – a way in which we would never treat a death row inmate or a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, for that matter – we will never have the opportunity to know if Terri might have lived, if she might have improved, if she might have regained enough of her motor skills and speaking skills to relay any words or messages to her parents.  And that probably suits Michael Shiavo just fine.

And it suits all liberals, who have the “culture of death” attitude, just fine.  And it is the reason why Michelle Goldberg uses Terri, her death in particular, as an example and a comparison between contraception and who has what controls over whose body and whose life.  Michelle Goldberg, as with all liberals, do not value the lives of the unborn any more than that valued the life of Terri Schiavo.  Which is interesting, from a feminist point of view, because here you have a man who wanted to end a woman’s life.  One might assume feminists would have been outraged.  They weren’t.

Terri, apparently, was of no use, of no value, to liberal feminists in her vegetative state.  And because liberals, as a body of people, are really nothing more than small collections of people whose ideas are in the minority, the only way they can succeed in their own goals is to band together to thwart conservatism, which as a body, and a percentage of American people, has, if not a majority, a much closer one than do liberals, and a higher percentage of people within its base than have liberals.  In other words, whether feminists approved of how the Terri Schiavo case was handled, feminists, being in a minority, could not risk angering the pro-assisted suicide supporters, another minority, with whom they need on their side as much as the pro-assisted suicide crowd needs the pro-abortion crowd on its side.

Michelle Goldberg asks whether or not, within the contraception debate, this is a “Terry Schiavo moment”.  It is, but not for the liberal, “culture of death” reasoning they give.  The “moment” which may be that in geologic terms, has been an ongoing “moment” for decades.  The “moment” is the ongoing debate in America that will decide whether or not life as any value at all, and who is control of deciding matters of life, and matters of death – and who has the right to decide such matters.  The “moment” is also an ongoing debate to decide exactly what life is and what life means.

The “Terri Schiavo moment”, from the liberal viewpoint, is fertile in the concept that death not only has more value than live, but that death itself is a value; and women who want the right to end their unborn child’s life with whatever contraception they choose must have, and retain, their right to do so.

Death with dignity is one thing.  However, where is the dignity in ending someone’s life, as Michael Schiavo ended his wife’s life, by starvation and dehydration?  Where is the dignity in ending someone’s life by plunging a needle into their skull in order to deflate it enough so it can be pulled from the womb without making its mother too “uncomfortable” in the process; or ripping its body parts into pieces and removing it from the womb piece by piece; or sucking it out entirely if it is small enough?

Conservatives support real “death with dignity”.  We don’t support murder.  And we don’t support redefining murder in legal terms so that murder becomes legally sanctioned by the state, by government and protected by the Constitution.  Morally and ethically abortion is murder.  That the state has legalized it does not change that fact.  What happened to Terri Schiavo was murder.  That the state of Florida sanctioned it does not change that fact.

Equating contraception, and the fight to control access to it, as being a part of a woman’s overall “health”, with that of Terri Schiavo is yet another example of feminists, and liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, acting stupidly and irrationally.  What liberals are fighting for is contraception that ends and removes an unwanted living child from a mother’s womb and her life.  What Michael Schiavo fought for was to end and remove a living woman, an obstacle, from his life so he could live his life anew.  In each case death, and the killing of a life, and a living human being, is the result.

If there is indeed a “Terri Schiavo moment” which there ought to be, it ought to be a teachable moment for all of us.  Liberals, like Michelle Goldberg – like all the usual suspects, Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill, all liberal feminists, all liberals, the entire American Left, the Democrat Party, including President Barack Obama who himself supports infanticide – all support death more than they support life; support fighting for death more than they support fighting for life; support legal and Constitutional rights which guarantees them the freedom to commit certain and specific acts which lead to death in “privacy”.

What the “Terri Schiavo moment” ought to teach us is what the vast and fundamental differences are in terms of morals and values between liberals (their “culture of death”) and conservatives (their “culture of life”).  Millions of unborn children are not now alive today because of the “culture of death” liberals have waged against life.  Terri Schiavo is not now alive today because of that same success, that same “culture of death” which epitomizes the liberal mindset.

What the “Terri Schiavo moment” ought to teach us is that if we don’t continue to fight the Left, and their “culture of death”, if we don’t continue to oppose them, if we instead give up and give in because it is an exhausting, unending process, particularly with regards to attempting to pass legislation and laws which we know will be challenged in every court in America; because the time, the money invested, often in vain (in terms of having these laws overturned by legislatures and courts) may become too much for us, financially and emotionally, to bear – if we cannot remain strong and courageous in our resolve to fight for a “culture of life”, life itself, and the right to live, will lose all value, all meaning, all rights.

What price are we willing to put on life?  Because we know the Left puts a big fat zero on life.  We know the Left has put, and invested, an enormous price on death.  And we know that the Left wants the price tag, the bill, associated with death to be yours to pay.  Hence the contraception mandate forced on us by Barack Obama.

Someone has to pay for the “culture of death”.  So too, someone has to pay for the “culture of life”.  The question before the American people right now is, what is the price, the worth, and who pays?  And who ultimately “pays” for a “culture of death”?  And what does that “payment” for a “culture of death” ultimately mean to us and to American society?  And once we have finished “paying” for a “culture of death”, can we ever return to a “culture of life”?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, contraception, Michelle Goldberg, politics, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
22 Feb 2012
3 Comments

Pro-Abortion Women Acting Stupidly

Pro-abortion women are always putting their stupidity, their arrogance and their idiotic and nonsensical push for why they need, and must retain, their right to kill unborn children on full display.  Here is another example of pro-abortion women acting stupidly.  Georgia Democrats, comprised of women, are using vasectomy to showcase the “double standard” between men choosing not to have children, by preventing a child from being created in the first place, and women choosing not to have children by aborting them after they have been created – or, killing them, as that is what abortion is.  Does anyone with a rational mind really believe the two are not so fundamentally different from one another?

Says Yasmin Neal, the bill’s author:

“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies.  It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

This type of ridiculous BS  is how liberal politicians waste their time, and ours.  A man who has a vasectomy is indeed preventing a future child from being creating when he engages in sex with a woman.  But, in having that vasectomy, is he really killing a child in the womb who has not yet been created?  Pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, are under that impression, and they believe the two, having a vasectomy and having an abortion are comparable.

This stunt, which is all that it is, is in response to…

HB 954, a bill sponsored by Republican Doug McKillips that seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In order to counter the bill, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly (as they are generally prone to do) think they can draw support in opposing the bill by hyping a man’s prerogative in having a vasectomy and why they, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, ought to exercise their own prerogative to kill an unborn child in the womb.  Well…

vasectomy = preventing a pregnancy and the creation of a child in the womb

abortion = killing an unborn child in the womb after it has been created.

Where are the similarities?

Related articles
Posted in education, feminist loons, Planned Parenthood, politics, silly laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
22 Feb 2012
1 Comment

Are Pro-Abortion Women Really The Only Authority On “Reproductive Rights” Because They Are Pro-Abortion?

Liberal feminists have been mad as hell since an all male panel deliberated over their so-called “reproductive rights”.  However, what exactly was being deliberated, and what exactly are these “reproductive right” they fear are being challenged and possibly taken away?  And if women had been included who identify themselves as pro-life, and agreed with their male colleagues, would these same liberal feminists not have still been outraged, indignant and mad as hell?

The panel was called not to discuss “reproductive rights” and whether or not women were entitled to them.  Rather the panel met to discuss whether or not religious institutions would, or could be, forced by the federal government to provide contraception, birth control and other services even if in doing so it went against their religious convictions.

Said Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican committee chairman,, in response to Democrats as to why no women were included:

“The hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience.”

In hindsight, it would have done well to include women, even an evenly split panel of men and women.  However, even women who dismiss and reject the notion that there is a right and an entitlement to “reproductive rights” are viciously scorned and attacked and vilified by liberal feminists and liberals in general.  And imagine if the panel was made up entirely of women who supported the right of religious institutions to be exempt from being forced to provide such services.  What, predictably, would the response have been among liberal feminists then?

Ladies and gentlemen – liberals are not, in fact, aghast that this was an all male panel.  They would have been equally aghast if it had been an all female panel which was in opposition to forcing Obama’s contraception mandate on religious institutions.  And they would have kept their mouths shut if, as an all male panel, they all concluded in favor of the liberal definition of “reproductive rights” and voted to support Obama’s contraception mandate and force religious institutions to provide services against their religious convictions.  So it is just hypocrisy on their part, on anyone’s part, to criticize the gender make-up of this particular panel.

What liberals are aghast over is that anyone, male or female, tries to intervene on behalf of unborn children to save their lives.  “Reproductive rights” are, after-all, a code word for abortion.  Any move to limit or restrict “reproductive rights” is seen as moving backward in time and putting women’s “health” is danger.  But since “reproductive rights” have nothing whatsoever to do with having a child and giving birth to a child but everything to do with the right to kill that child in the womb, anyone, male or female, is excoriated and ripped to shreds for trying to protect unborn life.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said early in the hearing, and voicing her anger that women had not been included:

“We will not be forced back to that primitive era.”

In other words, the “primitive era” she is referring to is the time before Roe vs. Wade.  Liberals, like Maloney, equate having an abortion, and the right to kill an unborn child, as “progress” in “women’s rights”, “women’s health” and “reproductive rights”.  It is strange, then, that there are many millions of women with whom are in favor of “repressing” women, which would include themselves, and “forcing” women “back to that primitive era”.  What do these women have to gain by siding with men on the “reproductive rights” of women?  Aren’t they contributing to the endangerment of all women (and that means themselves) and “women’s health” by doing so?

There must be something else going on that, these women so clearly see, which have blinded liberals and liberal women specifically.  Something that is so crucial, so important, so fundamental – so American, that women who are on the pro-life side are willing to “repress” all women and “force” them “back to that primitive era”.  What could that possibly be?  And why are pro-life women not considered an “authority” on “reproductive rights” the same as pro-abortion women are?

Related articles
Posted in abortion, healthcare, politics, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
20 Feb 2012

How The Left Repeatedly Rapes Women/Girls – And Why Leftist Women Love It

How many times a day do we hear how “rabid” and “extremist” conservatives are with regards to women, “women’s rights”, sexuality and “reproductive rights” and sex education vs. abstinence education?  The Left is even more “rabid” and more “extremist” when it comes to fighting for, and promoting, these concepts.  And is is all the more reason we, as conservatives, need to be more vigilant, more supportive of the social issues, even, and especially, in political campaigns, and why we ought to reject the both the Left’s assertion that social issues are not issues politicians should be meddling in (in particular from a religion stance) and that block of conservatives themselves who fear social issues will not win conservative politicians the necessary seats in congress to keep the House, take back the Senate and reclaim the White House.

The Left is relentless in its attack on conservatives (including conservative women) for having values which are consistently pro-life, pro-American and even pro-woman.  The Left cannot abide the fact that after forty plus years of “sexual revolution” and “sexual liberation” there are still tens of millions of Americans ( including women) who renounce, reject and revolt against them and their liberal/socialist agenda of raping women/girls of both their virginity at very young ages and their minds – which the Left ever is seeking to control.  And women/girls are being raped by the Left, which includes liberal, pro-abortion feminists, the MSM, the Democrat Party, the ACLU, the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) and a host of groups, organizations and activists who are committed to the destruction of American values and morals and will use whatever methods they can to ensure they are destroyed and stay destroyed.  But, how do they do it?

Just take a look at virtually any given story, on any given day, in the “Women” section at the Arianna Nation, for example.  Stories like, Why Sleeping With 75 Men Didn’t Make Me Promiscuous, Is It Time To Retire The Word ‘Wife’?, There Were How Few Women At The Contraception Rule Hearings?,Helen Gurley Brown Turns 90 — And Has A Few Words For You – these are just a few of the “Women’s” stories that rotate daily on the Arianna Nation that are intended to pass for “inspirational”, “inspiring”, “uplifting” and “progressive” reading.

The problem?  They all center around the belief that women have been so mistreated by men, and male dominated societies for hundreds, thousands of years, now it is time for them, women, to experience “freedom” and “liberation” for themselves, at the expense of giving up their most powerful weapon, their greatest source of strength, lowering their self-worth and relegating themselves as no better than the men they purportedly hate and despise by engaging in the exact same behavior they hate and despise men for.  But those “backward” and “religious extremist” conservatives (living in the time of yore) just keep getting in the way.

Yes, we, as conservatives, have a very real problem with women sleeping with men (and men sleeping with women for that matter) and the messages that sends to our young American boys and girls who are being educated to believe that sleeping around with various partners is not dangerous, promiscuous behavior.  The indoctrination they receive is a form of mind rape, and when they actually give in to temptation (because there are no responsible adults holding them back) they are being raped of their virginity and self-worth.

The Left, which hates family, despises marriage, loathes women who choose to stay at home to raise their children and is intolerable towards all men and women who choose to remain celibate and virgins until after they are married, heavily promotes and encourages abortion rights, the use of contraception and “safe” sex education to counter a culture and a society of people who do love family, love marriage, and love women, and respect women enough to not sully them by taking away their virginity – which does empower women in ways that, once her virginity is gone, her sexuality no longer has the same charismatic strength and charm it once possessed.

Women and girls are being educated to believe that “equality” means, and includes, the right of women and girls to partake in free, open sex, the same as men and boys do; that “equality” means, and includes, that because a man cannot get pregnant, a right to end an unwanted, unintended pregnancy must be available to women to even the playing field.

Conversely, these same women and girls are being educated to believe that remaining a virgin until married, or at least going through with a pregnancy which was unintended (rather than having the abortion) is akin to a religious philosophy of subservience to men and to a male dominated society.  If any of this is true, men themselves ought to be more courageous and step up to defend women who reject liberal feminism, reject the sexual “liberation” movement – and reject killing an unborn child who is the victim of an unintended pregnancy.  Men also ought to be more chivalrous when it comes to women by supporting them and their position to remain virgin until married.  The best way men can do that is to remain virgins themselves.  That is real equality among the sexes.

Women who call themselves feminists, and subscribe to liberalism and Leftism, do so primarily because they are driven by their hatred of men and the fact that men can have all the sex they want and never get pregnant.  Also because men, for so long, have held real power over them and their lives.  Most of that, in America, has been, by now, rectified and amended.  Women, in America, are just as equal to men, as men are to women – under the U.S. Constitution.

Of course men still cannot get pregnant, and that biological fact still infuriates liberal feminists to no end.  And women still do not possess the same physical strength and endurance as do men, which is why they have no place, and no business, being put in military combat roles where they not only endanger themselves, but their units as well, along with their missions and operations.  And that is why they (liberal feminists) are so vocal when it comes to abortion rights, access (the freer access the better) to contraception and why they demand so-called equal rights protections and special rights and privileges be guaranteed to them.

And that is why they (liberal feminists) love being raped, and why they love raping new generations of young girls.  This form of rape, which is a fantasy to them, feels good and is liberating, soothing and intoxicating.  And it is also why they look upon conservative women with spite and a vindictiveness unparalleled to the men they despise.  Such conservative women are traitors in their eyes.  Which is why they so vilify Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin and other conservative women – and why, when Leftist men satirize, dehumanize and degrade conservative women, liberal feminists never cry “sexism”.

The best way for conservative men and women to counter this madness is to join together, equally, to renounce Leftist, liberal ideology.  The more men and women that do this, the more the ideology of liberal feminism will be shuttered and confined to the kook-house of their creating where it will, having nowhere to spread, will self-combust and implode on itself, dying the death it deserves.

For the sake of America, and for the sake of America’s youth, and future generations – let’s get these liberal feminists to that nunnery!

Related articles
Posted in politics, women, women's rights and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
14 Feb 2012
2 Comments

On Valentine’s Day, HuffPost Says “Give Your Woman What She Really Wants” – An Abortion!

This Valentine’s Day, don’t waste your money on chocolate and flowers, don’t throw your hard-earned money down the toilet at some fine restaurant – instead, surprise the woman you love by taking her to the nearest abortion clinic.  Or, give her a gift card for when that “time is right”.  Show how much you love your woman by going with her into the abortion chamber of horrors together because nothing says loving, apparently, like killing your unborn child on Valentine’s Day.  And while many couples use Valentine’s Day to create a child out of love, liberals would like you to know that, this Valentine’s Day, and for all those Valentine’s Days yet to come – couples can also bond together for the express purpose of murdering their unborn child.  Talk about a St. Valentine’s Day massacre!

From the Arianna Nation comes this “lovely Valentine’s Day gift from one of HuffPost’s SS columnists, Robert Engelman:

“Valentine’s Day has long celebrated love with caring notes, decadent chocolates and romantic arrangements of flowers. But this Valentine’s Day, perhaps it’s time to celebrate with a gift many of the world’s women desperately want and need: reproductive health.”

“Reproductive health” is, and always has been, code for abortion.  But because abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, and liberals know that, they must use less frightening concepts to conceal their real intentions and their real desires.  In other words, if reproductive health was really about providing breast cancer screening, proper and safer pregnancy and childbirth techniques and other real gynecological concerns, liberals would spell it out that way in plain English.  Robert Engelman, who is the President of Worldwatch Institute, which is concerned with population growth and sustainable societies supports abortion as a means of population control and uses “reproductive health” as a guise to hide his despicable and altogether sinister goals.

“Reproductive health, including access to the information and means to plan a family, is a human right the world’s nations have recognized in various forms since 1968. Access to family planning and other reproductive health services safeguard the lives of women and their children and promote families that are emotionally and economically healthy.”

“And means to plan a family”?  In other words, men and women all over the world are having unprotected sex.   In numerous instances, an unplanned pregnancy occurs.  So, rather than man up (or woman up), Arianna Nation SS columnist Engelman advocates “access to family planning and other reproductive health services” as a “safeguard”.  Or – abortion, and the right to obtain an abortion to control population growth and ensure another unwanted child is not brought into the world.

Engelman, like all liberals, would never advocate abstinence, which is peculiar, since abstinence is the surest way to not get pregnant, and to not bring another unwanted, unplanned child into the world.  If Engelman really wanted population growth to slow and, over time, to be reduced, he would disseminate pro-abstinence literature to all the developing countries he is, supposedly, deeply concerned are over populated. If Engelman was really concerned with women’s health, which he is not, instead of advocating for an easy way out of an unplanned pregnancy, he would advocate for unmarried women and girls (and men and boys) to remain celibate until they are married.  If Engelman really wants to see the world’s population cut in half, he would support a real plan for women and girls that empowered them to hold onto their virginity until married, rather than including abortion as a means of population control.

“Reproductive health is not about state-mandated family sizes; it is about freeing women to make their own choices about when and how often to give birth. In all countries where affordable access is offered to family planning resources and women have the option of safe and legal abortions, women’s fertility rates drop to two or less children per woman.”

“Reproductive health”, to liberals, is all about abortion, and the money made from those abortions.  Abstinence “frees women to make their own choices”.  Abstinence is the best “option”.  Liberals, like Engelman, have no real respect or concern for women.  If he did, why does his concern for them only begin after a pregnancy occurs?  Engelman is only concerned with death, and using death to control and suppress population growth.  An unborn child, to Engelman, is not a human being, but a detriment to the Earth and to the society in which it would be born.

By the way, Engelman would also have American taxpayers pay for women around the world to have those abortions.

” A study by the UNFPA and the Guttmacher Institute suggests that it would take USD $24 billion to fulfill unmet reproductive health needs in developing countries, several times what countries spend today. According to the report, such an investment would “provide every woman with the recommended standard of maternal and newborn care” and would “[r]educe unintended pregnancies by more than 66 percent, prevent 70 percent of maternal deaths, avert 44 percent of newborn deaths, and reduce unsafe abortion by 73 percent.”

It’s a tragedy that there are still many countries where women and girls cannot control their own bodies with regards to sex.  And it’s a tragedy that men would still behave in such a depraved manner towards women.  However, there are just as many couples engaged in sex because they want it, and very often an unintended pregnancy results.  The less value a society places on life, the more they will show disrespect and contempt for any life  – the women and girls who they view as subhuman and the unborn children they reject as being human.  The best way to protect women from unwanted advances that lead to unwanted pregnancies is to educate both men and women, and boys and girls, to respect and value life, not to destroy it.

Ladies and gentleman – this Valentine’s Day, and for every day of the year, show each other just how much you really love one another by not creating an unplanned child.  And if you do – create a plan for life instead of death.  Using Valentine’s Day, of all days out of the year, to advocate for abortion and the killing of unborn children shows just how deeply committed liberals, like Engelman, are in the destruction of human life around the world.  Free sex, free love and free abortions – paid for by American taxpayers.  Is that what Valentine’s Day is really about?

Posted in abortion, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , ,
08 Feb 2012
2 Comments

Abolishing “Women’s Rights” A Top Priority

From the Arianna Nation:

Inspired by the backlash over the brief attempt by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, a group of senators Wednesday is launching a bid to organize 1 million people in support of women’s rights.  Led by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), seven Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are appealing to backers on all of their websites to sign on to “One Million Strong For Women” in hopes of harnessing the energy displayed in the backlash against Komen.

What rights do women actually lack, which, without having them, they, women, will forever remain the lessor of the two sexes?

When women talk about tight, uncomfortable fitting iron shackles, constricting belts, heavy locks, weighty chains clanking with the rhythm of a woman’s heartbeat and synchronized to her every breath – and of course the nightmarish visions of metal coat hangers; mind and body beaten down and ransacked, vandalized, disrespected, abused, tortured and repeatedly raped with no recourse, no respite and no remuneration, what are they really talking about?

If anything has been learned from the women’s movement (the radical feminist and liberal one) over the past forty or fifty years, it is that the more these women complain about how “unequal”, how “inferior” they are to men, how “unfairly” they have been treated by the “male dominated” society, the more actual harm these women cause to the real women’s rights fight.  When they talk about “women’s rights”, they are really talking about a few specific issues which only a minority of women really only find worth fighting for.  The “women’s rights” these women are concerned with, ironically, are opposed by more women than accepted.

Under the guise of “women’s rights”, make no mistake about what is really being demanded:

• The “right” to privately kill their unborn child – and they want us to pay for it.

•  The “right” to access free birth control, free contraception and free health care – and they want us to pay for that too.

• The “right” to be paid for work not done while on maternity leave; not to be fired or replaced while at home on maternity leave; not to have their pay reduced or in any way compromised while they are away; to return to her job after many years and to be paid the same as the man who has worked those same years she was away.

•  The “right” to divert money away from successful sports programs enjoyed by millions and put into all-girl sports programs virtually no one has any real interest in.

•  The “right” to have included in college courses “women’s studies”, “feminist studies” and other courses geared specifically towards women and the women’s movement (the liberal feminist one) which paint an anti-male, anti-American, anti-woman historic worldview in the minds of impressionable young girls – paid for through government grants with money confiscated via our taxes.  In other words, women’s study courses designed to create even more anti-male liberal feminists, and paid for by us.

These are the “women’s rights” they say they must have, and have protected by the Constitution.  The “women’s rights” liberal feminists are, and have been, fighting for are as pathetic a joke as anything Barack Obama or Joe Biden have ever come up with.  The “women’s rights” they demand has no basis in reality or logic.  The “women’s rights” they say must be agreed to and accepted, and Constitutionally protected, are more anti-woman, more alienating, more divisive and certainly more inhumane and immoral, than anything else.  The “women’s rights” they say all women cannot do without have more of an overall negative impact on all women than positive.

These are the “women’s rights” that must be abolished.  And this is a top priority.

Posted in abortion, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , ,
02 Jan 2012

Because It’s Really All About The Right To Kill The Unborn Child To Feminists

A most gripping and paralyzing drama is apparently unfolding in Iowa, one from which radical feminists like Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy) cannot shake free.  It is possible to imagine her, with a group of her feminists from California, huddled together in a room, frightened, cold perspiration dripping down the lengths of their bodies, tears flowing from their eyes down into a deep puddle underneath their feet, their high heels and stocking drenched.  What all this does to the pounds of makeup applied to their persons one may want to force themselves not to envision.  But know this, feminists are locked in psychological and emotional terror as the world they have become accustomed to, the “generations of progress”, rapidly disintegrates and dissolves in front of them, not so unlike the wicked witch of the west.  (The one from The Wizard of Oz, not Christine’s mother.)  Well, perhaps Christine is being a bit over dramatic.

American women face a stark choice in the Iowa caucuses: re-elect feminist President Barack Obama who has advanced equality or caucus for a Republican who pledges to roll back generations of progress.

On the other hand, Christine might be legitimately terrified over nothing.  In other words, would a Republican presidential win mean women would:

•  lose the right to vote

•  the right to work

•  the right to be independent

•  the right to travel freely without male escort

•  the right to hold an opinion

•  the right to run for political office

•  the right to live on her own, single and unmarried

•  the right to be a radical feminist

What exactly does Christine fear losing should a Republican win the White House in 2012?  Because even if a Republican does win the White House in 2012, there is not a single Constitutional right any woman has now that they will not then still have a tight grasp on.  Christine, the poor girl, has put herself in panic mode and, almost in a religious fanaticism, is making herself suffer for no legitimate purpose.

Feminism — equality without apology — knows no partisan bounds. Women across the philosophical spectrum make our own choices about our families, our careers, and our politics.

Christine is still wrapped in delusions of her own making.  Psychological help is what she needs.  What is she afraid a Republican in the White House will do to her and women across America?  Why then do so many millions of women flock to Republican candidates and endorse and support, and vote for, Republicans, and rejoice when Republicans win?  Why do these same women renounce the feminism of Christine Pelosi?

But in order to keep the freedom to make those choices, women need feminist leaders at the helm with policies that advance our progress. More important than identity politics are the feminist policies that allow women to make progress.

Falling, falling, falling – further into the depths of despair.  Oh, to think Christine is so far gone, her dreams flooded with, and her mind ravaged by, apparitions of fantasies that do not exist in reality.  What “progress” does she invoke?  What “policies” are slated for removal or will stagnate and collect layer upon layer of political dust with a Republican in the White House?  What “choices” will be denuded by a Republican and laid to waste?  What madness has driven her to write such fluff?

On economics…

Barack Obama, Democrat, has been an obstacle to women who want and need to work by keeping taxes and regulations high on business owners who would, with a much lower tax rate, have more opportunity to increase their hiring, including hiring women.  With a Republican in the White House, women have more assurance that our economy will recover, business will rebound and unemployment will drastically fall, all of which benefits women.

On health [care]…

Barack Obama supports the government taking over health care in America and having control over the choices we, including women, make about which doctors and hospitals we use, what treatments we can receive and when and how those treatments can be performed.  Under a government controlled health care system there will be fewer doctors, not more, resulting in a backlog of cases forcing millions of Americans, including women, to hold off on procedures which could prolong their health and save their lives.  Barack Obama supports dramatic increases in taxes, including on women, to pay for a government run health care system which, without competition from the private sector, and as a monopoly, has no real incentive to improve itself.  Under a government controlled health care system, the cost of health care soars while its quality plummets which endangers everyone, including women.

When it comes to our patriots, President Obama has committed to bringing our troops home honorably safely and soon, ordered the withdrawal of our combat troops home from Iraq…

By bringing our troops home without completing the overall mission, which included freeing Iraq from terrorism and terrorists, Barack Obama has put the lives of Iraqi Muslims, including their women and girls, who desired peace and cooperation with America in serious jeopardy and “at stake”.  The attacks on Iraqis, by Muslim terrorists, continues, even though our presence no longer casts a shadow.  Women in America have much to fear from a weak minded President such as Barack Obama.

Feminist leadership includes appointing…

•  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who supports the  call for Israel to stop developing new settlements, a demand made by the Hamas led Palestinians, another Muslim terrorist group which despises women and the concept of women’s rights and condones honor killings.

•  DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who supports TSA agents groping and molesting young children, including girls, and old women, and women in wheelchairs and women with other disabilities at airports to screen them for explosive devices and bomb making materials, but opposes screening people who look Arab because that might be offensive and politically incorrect.

•  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who supports illegal immigration in America, protecting illegal immigrants in America, providing illegal immigrants in America with jobs, free education and free health care and all the rights American citizens enjoy, all at the expense of American taxpayers, including women who must compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, girls who must compete for class space with illegal aliens, and all women and girls who must wait that much longer for medical attention while doctors attend illegal aliens before American citizens for fear of being sued by the ACLU, MALDEF, La Raza, and the federal government itself.

But what is it that most terrorizes Christine?  What has her nights filled with just as much dread and discomfort as her days, walking as a restless zombie throughout California?  She leaves us with a tantalizing clue, albeit obscure and somewhat hidden deep in subtext.

The Iowa caucuses will tell two very different stories about women in America: either we are capable of controlling our own bodies and planning our own families or we aren’t.

Alas, we may never know her true intentions from this erratic scribble she has provided us with.  And so, we can only hope Christine is able to get the help she needs to overcome her false fears of a Republican in the White House.  Because if she does not receive that help soon, when a Republican does win the White House, she will really lose control of her mind.

What will that look like?

Posted in 2012 election, feminist loons, politics and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
28 Dec 2011
2 Comments

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 6: The “Extreme” Value Of Human Life

Just “how extreme” is personhood, and the idea set forth by pro-life supporters that a fetus in the womb is in fact a human life worth protecting?  To pro-abortion feminist, Michelle Goldberg, who writes of Republican “extremism”, and a teleconference debate sponsored by Personhood U.S.A., any attempt at preventing a woman from ending her pregnancy is an assault on “women’s rights”, and therefore too “extreme”, including and especially the “extreme” anti-abortion positions set down by the four Republican candidates participating:  Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

In her article, Michelle Goldberg makes an attempt to redefine what “extreme” means.  Does she?

Michelle writes:

The event demonstrated that a commitment to banning all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a woman’s health, is now the normative position among the party’s presidential contenders.

Do conservatives place too much value on human life and the unborn, too much emphasis on when life begins, we cannot see by putting women in situations which make it harder, illegal, to obtain a life ending medical procedure, an abortion, we are jeopardizing their health, their lives, and devaluing the self-worth of all women, preventing them from going back and living their lives as they once did, shattering their dreams, making it impossible for women to become anything more in their lives than mothers?  What defense do conservatives have against such a reckless abandonment of concern for women’s rights, for equality, for fairness and the right of all women to share in the American Dream; to be free and independent?

This is what liberal feminists posit.  To them, pregnancy changes everything for a woman.  Giving birth reroutes a woman’s destiny.  Caring for and raising an unplanned child takes women down a road different from the one they had hoped to travel.  Women become lost down this unfamiliar, unfriendly terrain.  The bitter coldness, the loneliness, of pregnancy, the hostile, unpredicted conditions and alienation cause her no other choice but to seek out help.  So, they hitchhike a ride on the abortion bandwagon.

She writes of Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann distinguished herself with her dishonesty, claiming at one point that Obama is “putting abortion pills for young minors, girls as young as 8 years of age or 11 years of age, on [the] bubblegum aisle.” (Obama, of course, recently overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception available over the counter for all ages, infuriating women’s-health activists.)

To be fair, Bachmann was not as dishonest as Goldberg portrays her. If but for the immense amount of pressure anti-abortion groups have been mounting, if but for their successful lobbying efforts, Kathleen Sebelius would have accepted the FDA’s recommendation to allow girls at any age, even as young as ten, to purchase the Morning After pill (Plan B), without their parents knowledge or consent – and Obama likewise would have overwhelming approved and applauded, and supported, the decision.

In other words, neither Sebelius or Obama gave any real consideration to:

•  The cultural effects we would all be faced with of having to watch very young girls buy a drug behind her parents backs, to keep secret a sexual act she does not want them to know about.  Something liberal feminists want their parents, and society, to both accept and ignore.

•  The fact that teenagers are engaging in sex and rather than push for responsible programs which help them delay sexual activity, provide them with drugs which make the unwanted results go away, thereby allowing the irresponsibility to continue unhindered.  Something liberal feminists want conservatives to both accept and ignore.

•  The psychological effects all girls, even very young girls, would be forced to deal with, living in a society that does nothing to protect them from engaging in a behavior they are far too young to understand and appreciate.  Something liberal feminists want all girls to discover for themselves when they “feel they are ready”, even if that means at a very young age.

There has been considerable outrage within the pro-abortion and feminist community over what they feel is a betrayal by Sebelius and Obama.  Were they too “extreme” in preventing young girls from obtaining the Morning After Pill?  Michelle Goldberg believes they were.  And so do other feminists.  But don’t expect them to see their views as “extreme”.

Abortion, and the right to have an abortion, for any reason, regardless of the girl’s age or what stage the pregnancy is in, is more than a private choice, it is a fundamental and Constitutional right to Michelle Goldberg and liberal feminists.  Is that “extreme”?

Goldberg was also little impressed with Perry’s explanation for “flip-plopping” his views on abortion.  He now opposes it even in the case of rape and incest.

“This is something that is relatively new,” he said, citing a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, a spokeswoman for Personhood USA who was adopted after her mother, a rape victim, tried and failed to abort her. “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exemptions for rape and incest,” he said. “And over the course of the last few weeks, the Christmas holidays and reflecting on that…all I can say is that God was working on my heart.”

Is the pro-life position so “extreme”, so stubborn, we cannot accept abortion even in the case of rape and incest?  Even in the case of a woman’s “health”?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” we adamantly refuse to condone abortion, and fight vigorously to outlaw it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so narrow-minded that we reject abortion as a means of “family planning” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so hostile, to “women’s rights” that we put her unborn child’s right to live ahead of those “rights” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?

Is the pro-life position more “extreme” than the pro-abortion position?  Is Michelle Goldberg right?  Have we “gone extreme on abortion”?

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  Is there a life inside the womb or not?  Does that life have any value?

Is killing it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman less “extreme” than fighting for its life?

Or, has Michelle Goldberg redefined the meaning of “extreme”?

Posted in abortion, Michelle Goldberg, politics and tagged , , , , , ,
28 Oct 2011

Why The Continued “Assault On Women’s Rights” Is Moral And Justified

Planned Parenthood never met an abortion clinic it did not like.  They decry violence against women, but never mind the horrific violence against unborn children that goes on inside these places.  Every abortion clinic in America, including here in Philadelphia, where three people have now been charged with murder in their capacity as paid performers in this monstrous scam that has cost the lives of over 50 million people, has but one goal – to free women from the burden of motherhood and liberate them from those parental responsibilities which take them away from realizing real independence, real “equality” with men, in particular in the workplace.  Motherhood, being a parent, as far as Planned Parenthood, and feminism, is concerned, is a death sentence for womanhood, and however many steps back for women’s equality, and back into whatever century they claim it to be.

What is puzzling about this article is that it does not state whether the charges of murder are for the deaths of the unborn babies or the woman who died as a result of being given an overdose of Demerol.  Because abortion, although morally is murder, legally it is not- yet.  And the way in which the doctor performed the abortions, although very disturbing, sounds exactly like how any and all extraction and dilation abortions occur, except that in this Philadelphia experiment the baby was delivered entirely, head and all.  In other words, for it not to be considered a legal murder, the head would have had to remain inside the womb as the rest of its body dangled on the outside while the doctor plunged his instrument of death into the baby’s head.  Apparently, performing this exact same procedure, albeit with the baby entirely delivered, is murder.   Little technicalities, perhaps.  And let that be a lesson for all you future abortionists and abortionist “wannabes”.

Perhaps the murder charge is for the baby that was delivered alive into a toilet, but where the doctor fished it out, and then performed the abortion.  After-all, he probably didn’t want to get “cheated” out of his abortion money and figured, ‘Who’s going to know the difference anyway”?

Indeed.  How difficult is it to know whether a baby has been killed while its head yet remains inside its mother’s womb, or if it has been fully delivered and then aborted?  And why do we insist on calling the former “legal” and the latter “illegal”?

Abortion is the centerpiece of feminism and for those groups like Planned Parenthood which espouse the long held lie of  “women’s rights”.  You will not find them, nor will you find NARAL, NOW and the rest discussing this horrific murder on their websites, unless they can find a way to spin it in their own favor.  Along the lines of – well, if only the government had provided this clinic, its employees, with more funds, and – this is the fault of the religious right for their assault on women’s rights, etc.

Has Planned Parenthood ever accused an abortionist of murder, or accepted the accusation of murder, while performing an abortion?  Can an abortionist ever commit murder, in the mind of Planned Parenthood?  Remember, these are the people who consider pro-life activists terrorists.

The greatest threat to “women’s rights”, as far as feminists are concerned, is the threat to abortion; access to it, funding for it, support of it.  The fewer women who are having abortions, the fewer women there are to be found in the work place – they are all at home taking care of their babies!  Access, funding and support continues to dwindle, as more and more people, women especially, learn the grim truth of abortion, and reject it.  Planned Parenthood and other feminist “women’s rights” groups have gotten both sloppy and desperate in their campaign to save abortion, willing to do and say anything, no matter how deeply their actions cheapen and degrade womanhood.

If abortion really was a “women’s rights” issue, why do so many millions of women oppose abortion?  Compare that with the right to vote.  That was a women’s right’s issue.  Is abortion really a “personal choice” issue if taxpayers are funding it?  Is the “truth about abortion” really that it merely allows a woman more control over her body?  Nothing more than that?  Don’t women who oppose abortion know the dire jeopardy they are putting their own personal freedom and liberty in by opposing abortion?  Isn’t killing your unborn child worth the extra freedom and liberty that comes with it?

Ladies and gentlemen – in America, women have rights, the exact same rights as men, as guaranteed under our Constitution; rights unequaled, unparalleled, unmatched with respect to women in the rest of the world.  While most American women are happy with that, feminists and liberals have been attacking the Constitution for decades with the same kind zeal as, ironically, people in terrorist strongholds around the world, where women have no rights at all, have been attacking, and trying to attack, America because of our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms – especially those freedoms women enjoy.  Is it a far stretch to say terrorists hate our Constitution as much as liberals here in America, especially “women’s rights” groups like Planned Parenthood?  But pro-life activists are the real terrorists?

Either it is moral and it is justified to attack abortion for what it really is – murder, in the moral sense, or it is not.  Not a “women’s rights” issue as claimed by feminists.  And if it isn’t moral or justified to attack it; if we allow ourselves to give in to the lie that Planned Parenthood, feminists and liberals promote it as being – a “women’s rights” issue; if we who oppose abortion accept it as merely a “personal choice” women make to “end an unwanted pregnancy”, where do we draw the new line of what is moral and what is immoral?

Either life has value or it hasn’t.  And either killing Planned Parenthood (in the taxpayer pocketbook) and the legal right to abortion on demand, is moral and justified, or it is not.  If we cave in to anti-life, anti-women extremists like Planned Parenthood, what else will we cave in to?  And will there even be a line left to draw afterwards?

The more we attack and assault abortion for what it is, the more we attack and assault Planned Parenthood for what it is, what it represents and what its true agenda is, the more unborn babies will be saved from experiencing an horrific murder, whether they are partially in, or completely out of, the womb.

And the more girls who ultimately will be alive, and allowed to grow up to enjoy womanhood, and revel in, “women’s rights” as guaranteed through our American Constitution.  Because they weren’t murdered while still in the “unborn” stage.

Isn’t the right to life the real “woman’s right” issue we ought to be fighting for?

Posted in abortion, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, politics, Right To LIfe and tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
18 Oct 2011

NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, et. al. “Want People To Die” (Over 50 Million Already Have)

Who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

When Nancy Pelosi, Democrat CA, former Speaker of the House, disgraced and embarrassed herself on the floor of that House the other day, stating that Republicans who backed a bill (which has since passed) that would block taxpayers from having to fund abortions, and hospitals from having to perform those abortions against their religious/moral beliefs, she remarked that those Republicans who supported the bill “wanted women to die on the floor”.

Over 50 million lives have been lost since 1973 directly by the hands of Planned Parenthood and other so called “women’s rights” groups, and thanks in large part to the generous votes of “Corruptocrats” in congress like Nancy Pelosi who, through their votes, have allowed the killing to go on.

The Queen of Flamboyancy and drama aside, (Nancy Pelosi, not Barney Frank) who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

The pro-life conservative fighting for the rights of the unborn to live?   Or the pro-abortion liberal fighting for the rights of women to indiscriminately kill that life?

Every time a pro-abortion protester or group, like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc., promotes an abortion; every time a woman goes into an abortion clinic to have an abortion; every time an abortionist performs an abortion – someone dies.  Every time!  Except for those rare occasions where the abortionist botches the killing to the point where it strays over the line of legally killing the unborn child to becoming an act legally defined as murder, and where the botched abortion has been documented or otherwise cannot be covered up.  Because abortion, which is celebrated as a victory of, and for, women’s rights, is nonetheless, morally, understood to be murder.  Some victory.

When Nancy Pelosi stood before the House and condemned Republicans as heartless and “wanting women to die on the floor”, what she was really promoting, by pandering to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, is for women to have the right to let their unborn child “die on the floor” of an abortion clinic room.  And unless the mother’s life is legitimately threatened because of her pregnancy (and only a handful of crackpots oppose abortion even in this instance) what reason is there for her having the right to let her unborn child “die on the floor”?

When Planned Parenthood helps a woman plan the killing of her unborn child, and ultimately helps her carry out the killing to the fullest, who is it who is letting who “die on the floor”?

When politicians vote in favor of forcing tax payers to fund abortion, and for hospitals to perform those abortions in strict conflict to their own religious beliefs; when politicians vote in favor of more liberal abortion rights in general, who is it who is condemning life to “die on the floor”?

When pro-abortion women, and men, gather to protest for abortion rights, for easy access to those abortions, for abortions at any time and for any reason, who is it who is protesting whom to “die on the floor”?

When pro-life women, and men, and organizations fight and protest to protect the lives of the unborn from being indiscriminately aborted, and when they are successful in changing a pregnant woman’s mind, when they are able to avert an abortion from taking place inside an abortion clinic, who “dies on the floor”?

Through the demonstrative arrogance of Nancy Pelosi, and liberal politicians like her; the demoniacal, deconstructive and despicable actions of Planned Parenthood and anti-life groups like them, they continue to spread the lie that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure, no more significant, or less, than getting one’s ears pierced or getting a tattoo, which all women ought to have easy and affordable (taxpayer funded) access to at any time, for any reason, without question.  Despite the fact that abortion, in the vast majority of instances is not simple, nor is it even as necessary as getting a piercing or a tattoo, which is hardly a necessary undertaking in of itself.  And abortion still leaves one dead life “on the floor”.

How can Nancy Pelosi say conservatives want “women to die on the floor” by blocking tax payer funded abortions where the life of the mother is not at risk, or anywhere near in danger, and the woman is not going to die by that abortion being prevented?  In other words, if the woman is not going to die (and there already is federal coverage for abortion for low income women who must have an abortion because her pregnancy is causing real danger to her life) why must tax payers be forced against their religious and moral beliefs/convictions, and hospitals as well, to see that abortion carried out?

Obviously Nancy Pelosi was using the bill as a diversionary tactic because she knows that by blocking taxpayers from funding certain abortions, and by blocking hospitals from being forced against their religious/moral beliefs to perform those abortions, it makes it that much more difficult for an indiscriminate abortion to happen.  And it is for the indiscriminate abortion, the abortion “for any reason” which is at the heart of the pro-abortion movement.  Remember, nobody except those few crackpots contests an abortion where the mother’s life is legitimately at risk.

It is for the indiscriminate abortion which Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Nancy Pelosi, et. al., fight to protect and fight to keep legally intact.  It is for this same type of abortion which pro-life organizations fight to make illegal.

So, the question remains on the table:  When politicians breathe life into, and pass, pro-abortion bills, sponsored and promoted by Planned Parenthood, et. al., on the House Floor, who is it who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

Posted in abortion, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation