The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “feminist loons”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

Meet The Anti “War On Women” Women

Foolish liberal feminists who wrongly and irrationally complain about a war on women ought to be prepared to meet their betters.  One group of conservatives is going to make it awful difficult for them to be taken as anything other than the joke that they are.  What makes this group of conservatives so special and unique?  They are all women.  Yes, that’s right.  Women!  Women standing up for conservative principles amidst the fog of war that is in actuality no war at all, but in the lurid, corrupt and feckle-encrusted minds of liberal feminists like Sandra Fluke, the National Organization of Women, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the entire Democrat Party, all of whom are the real traitors to, and of, women.  Women will be represented in congress, and women will be a driving force in shaping policy.  But it will be conservative women, not mushy, emotional, nonsensical, wishy-washy feminists who demand the killing of unborn children be legally sanctioned by government and paid for by taxpayers.

Does that sound erratic and scatter-brained to you?  These conservative women are proof that the war on women is, and has been, a canard all along.  Nobody is being fooled by this charade but these feminists themselves who still think they have made any case at all against conservatism and so-called misogynists who oppose taxpayer-funded contraception and forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control, including that birth control used specifically in the act of sexual irresponsibility.

The National Organization of Women, which is the equivalent of an empty, discarded shell not even a crustacean would inhabit tried, and failed, to shut down Rush Limbaugh, has been telling American women for decades that men, and conservative men in particular, are anti-woman.  Yet, for all their pooh-poohing, there are more women (Rush Babes, as they are known) who support Limbaugh than support NOW.  If American women really felt there was a war on women, wouldn’t that be reversed?

The reality is, as it has always been, that women are far more pro-life and pro-family than liberal feminists give them credit for being.  But that doesn’t translate into the “barefoot and pregnant” definition liberal feminists have ascribed to being pro-life and pro-family.  It’s interesting to note that while conservative men are not at all fearful of a conservative women with an intelligent, independent mind of her own, liberal feminists are.  A woman’s mind that cannot be controlled, influenced and shaped by liberal feminist dogma is a mind that any liberal feminist fears.

Every other group in America is “coming out”.  Now it is time for conservative women to come out.  There are many millions of them, whose numbers are being underrepresented in the MSM.  Conservative men, who are secure in both their politics and their manhood, are looking for more conservative women to come out of the shadows and help them win back America from the grips of liberalism and to beat back those feminists who insist to be pro-life is to be a misogynist.

The values and morals held by conservative women are worth taking seriously.  The values and morals held by liberal women are worth taking out with the trash, seriously, including their biography of “Julia“.  But when you do take them out to the trash, don’t mix them in with the recycling.  Or – do you see anything in liberal feminism worth reusing?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

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?

Abortion Not (Just) A Religious Issue – It’s Terry O’Neill Who Is “Poppycock”

Unborn Baby-killer supporter (is that too strong?) Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, like most pro-abortion supporters lives under the delusion that only religious people are, or would ever consider being, anti-abortion.  While it is probably true that most non-religious people would support abortion just as most religious people would be opposed to it, religion in of itself is not necessarily the only, the over-all driving force, or most important factor, behind ones pro-life motives.

What is?

Liberal vs. conservative ideology.  In other words, the vast majority of self avowed liberals, including those who describe themselves as “religious” are pro-abortion.  Whereas, most self avowed conservatives, including those who describe themselves as “non-religious” are pro-life.  Most non-religious people lean towards liberalism, as most religious people lean towards conservatism.  However, most liberals leans toward being pro-abortion, just as most conservatives lean towards being pro-life.  Religion, in this sense, is irrelevant.

Conservatives value human life, from the moment of conception, throughout one’s life unto death, and beyond, and are willing to make sacrifices in order to protect and preserve life which liberals are not willing to make.  Sacrifices which include giving up, or postponing, one’s ambitions in order to care for a new child.  Most often this burden falls on the woman who, if she is working, must give up that position.

Liberals, and especially liberal feminists like Terry O’Neill, despise and loathe the idea of women having to succumb to such an “ordeal”, to anything that would lessen their ranks and numbers in the workplace, that would revert them back to “homemaker” status.  Feminists see this as “going backwards in time”.  This is why they fight so fiercely for abortion, for the right of a woman to “choose”, for the right of a woman to end her pregnancy by terminating (killing) the unborn child within her that, if allowed to live, would hamper and strain the new mother to no end, stall or prevent “progress” and ‘equality” for women.  It is so much easier to just kill the unborn child, from the liberal point of view.  Even from the religious-liberal point of view.  But not the conservative point of view.  Or even the non-religious-conservative point of view.

That is why liberals neither put value on unborn life, nor consider, or would consider, an unborn child as a human life.  If they ever did that, their entire pro-abortion, “right to privacy”, a “woman’s body” argument would be ripped to shreds.

And it is why O’Neill would have this to say about abortion, the Catholic Church and any federal regulation which would intrude on a woman’s right to “choose”:

“[F]or a bunch of men who, forgive me, don’t get pregnant and who refuse to allow women into their own ranks of leadership, to presume to say that they can make a thing that has a conscience that trumps the conscience of an individual woman is simply laughable, but in a sad way.”

So, O’Neill is revealing not only her anti-Catholic bigotry, but her overall condemnation of the “thing”, as she describes the living fetus.  And she is using religion as the basis, the foundation, for her discontent and for the obstructionism which she contends is coming only from the point of view of “radical and “extremist” right-wing religious fervor, which feminists and liberals always do.  But this is where she is wrong.  It is not coming just from the religious aspect.  Mostly, but not entirely.  The pro-life sentiment comes entirely from the conservative aspect.  For, it is conservatism which attests that the value of human life “trumps” an “individual woman’s” right to end that life.

O’Neill is saying here that it is “unconscionable” not allowing a woman to legally abort her unborn child because it could potentially represent regress to that “individual woman” and therefore, from O’Neill’s point of view, harm progress for all women and “women’s rights”?  Didn’t Nancy Pelosi have that same problem, not too long ago, with the Catholic Church?  And somehow we are to believe O’Neill, a liberal and a feminist, has more of a conscience than a pro-life conservative, religious or not.

O’Neill’s statement came in response to a reporter’s question about NOW’s support for a new federal regulation, issued under President Obama’s health care law, that will require all American Catholics as well as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

O’Neill’s war with the Catholic Church and religion goes beyond its opposition to abortion, but is heavily centered around it.  And using the First Amendment, freedom of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment she attacks Catholic Bishops who would fight to retain their own right not to be forced by law to dispense contraception or pregnancy ending pills to patients who might want them.

“In fact, any restriction on women’s access to birth control violates that individual woman’s right to the freedom of religion under the First Amendment; violates her right to the equal protections of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment; violates her right to privacy under Griswold vs. Connecticut; violates her right not to be discriminated against in the workplace in violation of the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and violates her rights under the Pregnancy Act”.

However, her contention that it is religion, and only those who hold religious values, which is in the way of the “progress” women have made is misguided.  Devout, religious Catholics working in hospitals, of their own free will, have bound themselves to the concept that contraception equals the destruction of an embryo, which at that stage has conceived life.  But there is a vast and fundamental difference between something taken which prevents a pregnancy from occurring, and something taken after the pregnancy has occurred, which ends, terminates (kills) the pregnancy already underway.  This isn’t merely a religious concept but a scientific one as well.  Science has shown conclusively that life begin at conception.  Therefore, religion is out of play and conservatism, religious or not, and the value we ascribe to life, replaces it.

If her argument against Catholic based hospitals, publicly funded, was merely with a pill to block the pregnancy from occurring, O’Neill would have a point.  The sperm itself is neither a life nor a human life, but merely the vessel in which is contained the information for building life.  Likewise, the egg is neither life, nor human life, but merely where that life will be housed, built and ultimately created once the sperm (the vessel) reaches it.

Look at it this way – the average male produces hundreds of millions of sperm on an ongoing basis, and many times that throughout his life.  If each individual sperm really was a life, and human life – and if God (or any Creator) actually does exist, and cares deeply about life, its sanctity and value, to the highest regard, why allow billions, hundreds of billions, of sperm to simply die in the process of finding their way to the egg during intercourse?

The same holds true for the egg.  A woman, on average, ovulates every month.  During ovulation a new egg is created.  12 eggs a year.  If each individual egg was a life, and a human life, why would God allow for the destruction of eleven those eggs?  All twelve in a given year if there is no intercourse.  Consider the vast waste of sperm and eggs!

And while private Catholic, or any religious based, hospitals ought to have the right not to dispense medication counter to their beliefs, those which are public, and funded in part, or entirely through taxpayer dollars, have an obligation to the entire community.  However, public or private, any hospital, religious or secular, with regards to its employees, needs to retain their rights where dispensing life ending medication (contraception) is concerned.  In other words, any hospital, and any of its staff, need to retain their First Amendment rights to not provide to any woman any contraception, including condemns, which conflicts with their own personal religious values.  If a woman goes to a public hospital for contraception she needs to find someone who is not bound by religious doctrine who can help her.

But O’Neill’s contention is that all hospitals, and all its staff, ought, and need, to check their religion and their religious values and convictions at the hospital’s main entrance door.  This is more than wrongheaded – it is unconstitutional.

In fact, the Obama administration has an obligation to allow every individual–individual faithful Catholic–to make her own mind up about whether she will use birth control and whether she will have an abortion. That’s the Obama administration’s obligation. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ claims that institutions can have consciences–that’s poppycock.”

What is “poppycock” is that statement and this one:

It [allowing hospitals a waiver from being legally compelled to provide contraception] violates the law, six ways from Sunday, to put any kind of restriction on it.”

What is “poppycock” is her long held war on religion, her ongoing war with Catholics, and Catholic Bishops in particular, and her ascertain that there is a fundamental constitutional right for any woman to have access to any form of contraception which is designed solely to end a pregnancy; and that hospital staff, religious or not, who are pro-life, by law, and under penalty of fine, firing, jail or anything else, must dispense it to women.

What is “poppycock” is the idea that religion is in the way of a woman’s “progress”.  What is “poppycock” is the idea that abortion itself is “progress” for women.  What is “poppycock” is the idea that liberalism, liberal feminists and all pro-abortion supporters “trump the conscience” of conservatism and conservative pro-life supports, religious or not.

That is “laughable”.

Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards

On the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, women are indeed “watching” and they are angry as hell that the monstrous, evil practice that is abortion has not yet been overturned.  But if you were only to listen to radical feminist, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you would get the impression that all women fully supported abortion, and fully support Roe vs. Wade.  What is Cecile Richards response to the fact that scores of millions of women in fact oppose abortion and are working hard to overturn Roe vs. Wade?  Answer?  Repugnant, indignant silence.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, liberal feminists all make it sound as if abortion is a fundamental and imperative “woman’s right” issue, and that without it women are inferior and less equal to men and/or second class citizens in America.  That, if Roe vs. Wade was ever to be overturned, women would somehow loss something of value, some piece of their identity, some inherent and innate freedom and right.  But the only thing that is “lost” when Roe vs. Wade is overturned is a woman’s right to kill her unborn child.  That is, and has been, the defining issue for the past 39 years.  Every time a woman has an abortion she is in actuality killing her unborn child, whether she is aware she is or not.

There is no reason to doubt Cecile Richards, or Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW all know abortion kills unborn children.  There is also no reason to doubt they do not care.  To them, pregnancy is like a terminal cancer.  Pregnancy, to them, means a life sentence of stay at home mother-hood.  This is what they fear most.  More women staying at home to raise the kids, either leaving the workforce or never entering it.  In other words, pure, unadulterated selfishness.

Richards celebrate Roe vs. Wade as:

The time the Supreme Court recognized the inherent right to privacy for women…

But at that time, in 1973, because science and medicine were both more primitive, the Supreme Court was forced to make an error of judgement in ruling on the side of abortion, and granting, a right to it.  The Supreme Court, because the evidence did not yet exist, did not recognize that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception.  Science was not as advanced in 1973 and the technology to peer inside the womb was unavailable.  And yet, while this technology has been available for years now, we are still debating whether or not abortion is the killing of an unborn human being or merely the removal of a blob of tissue or collection of cells, or whatever other disgusting euphemisms the pro-abortion movement ascribes abortion as being.

Cecile explains the fundamental and critical importance of Roe vs. Wade and abortion this way:

[As] an urgent issue given that women were dying in emergency rooms across the country from self-induced abortions.

In other words, we are supposed to keep abortion on demand legal for all women because a tiny, tiny minority of women, a fraction of the actual number and percentage of women have, in the past, and of their own free will, self aborted, and died???  And should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, there is the possibility several woman could be forced, of their own free will, to revert back to the illustrious “back-alley abortions”???  The infamous metal coat hangers???  The storied and “heroic” long trips across the country to find the one person who can end their pregnancy in secret and save them from mother-hood???

Ladies and gentleman – Cecile Richards is engaging in deception, as is Planned Parenthood and the entire pro-abortion industry.  The vast majority of women who became pregnant prior to Roe vs. Wade carried the pregnancy through.  Granted, in cases of young girls, there was still that stigma and shame attached, and perhaps they were sent away to visit an “Aunt”.  However, abortion is not now legal, is not now so rigorously fought for strictly to keep women from engaging in those dangerous “back alley abortions”.  Abortion is kept alive, and fought for by Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc. for two reasons.  One – to keep women and girls from having to decide over caring for a child or a career.  Two – because abortion is not done pro-bono, it remains a very profitable business and money-maker.

Another of Cecile’s canards:

But today, women across the nation are disturbed to see a set of politicians doing everything they can to undermine this landmark decision that has stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health for four decades.

To the many millions of American women who are pro-life, abortion has never “stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health”.  That is a feminist prevarication.  It has, of course, stood as a critical safeguard for liberal feminists who desire to indoctrinate other unsuspecting girls and women, into believing abortion, under the guise of a “right to privacy” is a woman’s right issue that cannot, must not be breached.  Because if it is, all women, so feminists profess, will be unduly subjected to the “horrors” and “unimaginable dangers” of the past.  Richards always invokes “dangerous and illegal abortions”, but what her greatest fear is, is seeing America revert back to the 1950’s and the “Father Knows Best“, “Ozzie and Harriet“, and  “Leave it to Beaver” way of life that makes feminists like Richards cringe and squeal in disgust.

Look at it this way – if abortion really provides a safeguard to women’s “health”, the challenge for Richards is to explain what the specific “health” issue is, which she and the rest of the feminists never do.  And if it is not life threatening, then it is treatable for both mother and unborn child.  So, why kill the child in the womb if both it and mother can live?  Until Richards and the entire pro-abortion movement, can be thoroughly challenged to define what specific “health” issue(s) warrants the killing of an unborn child, they will keep using “health” as a generic euphemism for what really amounts to their fear of America, and American values, returning to the era of the 1950’s.

There is nothing “anti-woman” about being pro-life.  Abortion rights are under assault now because more and more American women, and men, are coming to that conclusion.  The tide is indeed turning, and the filth of Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the entire pro-abortion movement is slowly washing away.

We know Roe vs. Wade will celebrate its 40th anniversary next January 22nd.  Let us hope (and pray, for those of you who are religious) that there is a Republican in the White House by then, and the House and Senate is controlled by a majority of pro-life conservatives who will finally topple this national disgrace which has seen the killing of over 50 millions human beings, the vast multitude of which were exterminated needlessly and selfishly.

As new measures are introduced to put an end to the despicable, evil practice of abortion, Richards and her feminist pro-abortion ilk will kick, scream and move about even harder to keep the killing of unborn children legal.  We know that.

We also know that unborn children have the ability to kick and move about in the womb – a sign of life.  As Richards kicks and flails about madly, insanely, irrationally, fighting to keep abortion alive, will unborn children have to kick all that much harder to let their mothers know they are fighting to keep alive, that they want the chance to live  – and they do not want to be killed?

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?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: