The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “NOW”

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?

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

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?

Terry O’Neill, NOW President, Wants Your Baby To Die!

Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization Of Women, (referred lovingly by Rush Limbaugh as the NAGS), lost in her own translation, and having abandoned all sense of reason, is trying desperately to paint conservatives as anti-woman and anti- women’s “health”.  While this is a lie, and an absurd one at that, what is not a lie is that Terry O’Neill, and other liberal pro-abortion feminists, are doing everything they can to undermine a woman right to knowledge and education, particularly in the case of pregnancy and abortion, and how much information women are provided about their unborn baby.

Terry and her ilk don’t want women informed at all about what is going on inside their own bodies, which is why she, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all her pro-abortion liberal feminists and allies are up in arms over any law that would delay a woman from seeking an abortion.  Ultrasounds are the new battle, which Terry describes as “violating a woman’s body and rights”.  It’s yet another pathetic and disgraceful attempt by pro-abortion supporters to remove any necessary and imperative obstacles from a woman who is seeking to end a pregnancy out of emotional turmoil rather than because there is any real medical or health threat to her life.

Writes Terry:

“For decades, the radical right has been chipping away at women’s access to reproductive health care.”

Translation:  The “radical” Right has been chipping away at access to abortion on demand as a means of birth control, and using abortion, which is the killing of an unborn child, for purposes other than to save the life of the mother.

“After the 2010 elections, these attacks escalated into an outright War on Women.”

Translation:  These so-called “attacks”, which are indeed a “war” were never about or against women.  Rather these “wars” are all about ensuring women have the right to know everything about their pregnancy and their unborn child, including the fact that their unborn child is actually a living human being.  Ultrasounds prove that by snapping a picture of the fetus, which is clearly identifiable, any women looking at it can clearly discern a human being in that picture.  Terry knows a fetus is in fact a living human being,  But she would rather women still have the right to kill it, and she is worried to death that if a woman who is contemplating an abortion is shown an image of her actual child inside her womb, that woman will change her mind about having the abortion.  Stuff like that scares Terry, all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and pro-culture of death liberals, to death.

“Now, the Republican presidential primaries are offering a disturbing glimpse into the supposed conservative vision for this country. In this right-wing utopia, women will no longer be able to exercise the right to control their bodies, plan their families or safeguard their own health.”

Translation:  The “utopia” we envision is one in which women have been provided the right information and education, which is currently being denied them at Planned Parenthood, to make an informed decision about abortion, what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn child – and to come to the realization, on her own, that having an abortion for emotional reasons is not the best response for her or her baby.  Our “utopia” absolutely includes safeguards, put in place to protect unborn life from being wantonly, maliciously and intentionally destroyed.  The unborn obviously do not have a voice of their own.  We, who are pro-life, need to be their voice and speak on their behalf.  Conservatives are not interested in “controlling women’s bodies”.  We are interested in ensuring that the unborn child, which is also a “body” has protection and rights too, namely the right to live.

“The church and the state will tell women what is best for them, and religious entities’ “liberty” will consistently trump individual women’s right to live and work free from discrimination and in accordance with their own religious and moral beliefs.”

Translation:  Terry wants the government to force religious institutions to provide medication and services it finds morally objectionable.  That is what Obama’s contraception mandate is all about and why you are hearing about it constantly on the news.  The church is not trying to tell “women what is best for them”.  Any church certainly tells its own constituents what is best for them, according to their own doctrines and beliefs, which each member voluntary accepts as part of belonging to that particular church.  It is Terry, Barack Obama and the democrat Party – not the church – which is attempting to force itself and its will on the American people.

“Much of the current he-man chest thumping is done for the benefit of voters who might be swayed to cast their ballots for the GOP based largely on social issues. And, as demonstrated in Virginia this week, conservative politicians are perfectly capable of putting on the brakes when proceeding with a piece of their anti-woman agenda appears to be backfiring.”

Translation:  Not only is there plenty of “He-man thumping” going in, there is plenty of “She-woman” thumping going on as well.  Terry still doesn’t understand that there are tens of millions of women who are pro-life.  Terry still believes, erroneously, that abortion is a woman’s right issue; that access to abortion somehow empowers women and creates equality among the sexes.  The only thing abortion, and access to abortion, does is kills an unborn child.  That is abortion’s only purpose.  That some politicians, including Republicans, have caved is an indication of their own political cowardice, and is more evidence they, as in the case of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, are more concerned with saving their own worthless political life than unborn life.

“Still, the right-wing commitment to keeping women in check is surprisingly strong and reveals a frightening disrespect, even contempt for women who aren’t sufficiently submissive.”

Translation:  Our “commitment” to the unborn, their right to live and protecting them from harm, is the only thing we, pro-life conservatives, are trying to “keep in check”.  What can be so “frightening” about that?  And what can be so “contemptible” about that?  Here, again, Terry views abortion as women’s empowerment; that taking the right to abortion away from women somehow diminishes their role in society and makes them that much more “submissive”.  This is another area, for which liberal feminist, anti-male, Terry O’Neill just doesn’t understand, or want to understand.  To conservatives, being “submissive” is a two-way street, which includes men, and husbands, being just as equally “submissive” to women, and their wives, as women, and wives, need to be to men, and their husbands.  That is equality.  What Terry wants is superiority, and for women to be superior, to have special rights which includes the right to kill an unborn child.

“Turning the clock back includes shaming women for their sexuality and punishing them for terminating a pregnancy (which is still legal, by the way). This brings us to one of the more degrading tactics up the radical-right sleeve: mandatory ultrasound laws.”

Translation:  Our goal, as pro-life conservatives, is indeed to “turn back the clock” to a time when abortion was virtually never a consideration used to end a pregnancy.  Whether “punishing” a woman for “terminating her pregnancy” – killing her unborn child – is a punishable offense in some places has nothing whatsoever to do with “shaming women for their sexuality”.  Whatever “shame” was involved in the past, and past dealings with regards to unintended, unplanned pregnancies, when a woman or girl became pregnant, and was not married, no longer exists in America today and is not longer a plausible scenario.  Women, including conservative and pro-life women, have no intention of reverting back to the days of old and “shaming” women and girls by sending them to see an “aunt in Boston” or to a convent, a shabby, run-down women’s shelter or throwing them out of their house, or in prison, or whatever other horror stories Terry O’Neill is irrationally worried will happen.  That part of America is passed.  We, pro-life conservatives, have evolved.  It is Terry who is still living in the past.

“Under these laws, before a woman can undergo an abortion procedure, a doctor must perform an ultrasound and offer the woman an opportunity to view the image of the fetus or hear a detailed description.”

Translation:  Well, since this is exactly the intent of the laws being proposed, no translation needed.  Why is Terry so fearful and terrified of ultrasounds?  A woman viewing an image of her unborn child could very well become teary eyed, have a change of heart and stop the abortion from occurring.  What other reason is there for opposing an ultrasound?  It’s invasive?  Absolute BS.  How invasive is the actual abortion itself?  And if a woman is willing to undergo an invasive procedure to kill her unborn child, why the hell would she be unwilling to undergo a so-called  “invasive” procedure to snap a picture of the unborn child she is about to kill?

“As ultrasounds are rarely medically necessary prior to an abortion, these laws exist to demean the woman and make the procedure more expensive to boot. Ultrasound costs range from $300 to $700, and the woman, of course, is typically expected to pay for this state-mandated exam.”

Translation:  Of course ultrasounds are not “medically necessary”.  But they are nonetheless imperative.  They do not “exist to demean women”, but to educate and inform women to the fact there is an unborn child in their womb, not a blob of tissue or collection of cells.  Terry is not worried about the cost of the ultrasound because of its expense.  The cost of the abortion itself is roughly the same cost as an ultrasound.  What Terry is worried about is the profit lost from the abortion.  A woman shown an image of the child, just moments away from execution, may very well opt to save her child from permanent destruction.  If that happens, Planned Parenthood and the abortionist don’t make any money.  On the other hand, think of the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood could reap and profit from, from the ultrasounds themselves!  There’s an angle even pro-abortion supporters never thought of.

“But the most disturbing aspect of these laws is that in the vast majority of abortions, which occur far too early in pregnancy for an external (“jelly on the belly”) ultrasound to produce an image, the ultrasound must be transvaginal — i.e., a long wand-like ultrasound probe must be inserted deep into the woman’s vagina. This is, quite simply, state-sponsored rape. Even the FBI recognized last year, as most states did long ago, that vaginal penetration without a woman’s consent is rape.”

Translation: Terry fears “a long wand-like ultrasound probe” being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  And she calls that not just “rape”, but “state sponsored rape”.  Hmm.  How exactly is the actual abortion performed?  Is nothing similar to a “wand-like” instrument “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina” to extricate the unborn child?  In other words, whether it is an instrument to take a picture of an unborn child, or an instrument to remove and kill it, there is some type of instrument being “inserted deep into a woman’s vagina”.  In that event, we either have “state sponsored rape”, (which is in itself an over-reaction) or we have state sponsored killing of an unborn child.  Which is the lessor of two evils?

Terry O’Neill is acting through emotions, rather than through reality or rationality.  So are all liberal pro-abortion feminists, and all liberals who support abortion.  The point of having an ultrasound is to empower women, to provide a woman seeking an abortion with as much information as she can have to make an informed decision.  Terry O’Neil, although she says she is pro-women’s rights, nonetheless would rather women be left in the dark, forbidden important knowledge, restricted from access to real health information, and “shamed” for wanting to know as much about her pregnancy and her unborn child as she can know.

Terry O’Neill is the real rapist here.  Terry is raping all women of valuable and critical information pertaining to their pregnancies.  Terry is the one “inserting” her “long wand-like probe” into women – not into their vaginas, but into their brains and their minds, and with that probe Terry is sucking out every bit, and every last vestige of, woman-hood and what it means to be a woman, changing women into pro-abortion feminist robots that are easy to control and manipulate and easy for her, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and her NOW group to force into their “submission”.

For all women who want to retain their true independence, want true empowerment, want true equality, want to control their own bodies –  choose the pro-life side.  Men who are pro-abortion have little respect for women, and women who are pro-abortion have little respect for themselves.  Conversely, men who are pro-life have enough respect for women, and more respect for women than men who are pro-abortion, to keep their hands off women and to keep themselves restrained.  And women who are pro-life will be less sexually active before marriage than women who are pro-abortion, because women who are pro-life, who are empowered with knowledge, will understand that the more often they have sex, regardless of how “safe” it is, there is always the possibility of becoming pregnant.

In other words, if women want men to be more submissive, if women really want to be more dominant – take back, and take control of, your sexuality.  Don’t spread it around and cheapen it and yourself.  Men love “easy” women.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean they love women.

How is Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, helping women by cheapening and degrading them, their sexuality, for the sole discretion and delight of men?  What is “pro-woman” about that?

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”.

Of Slurs And The Hypocrisy Of The National Organization Of Women

What do you get when you call a conservative woman a “lyin’ ass bitch”?

Long after the fact has occurred, days after the laughter and applause of that singular moment has subsided and the thunderous round of cheers and hand clapping has calmed down to a lull and a whisper; when even after the sharp aching of sides and swelling of bruises around the guts have quieted; when after the intentional slur has since been weighed, examined and roundly criticized and condemned by those of us with a higher moral standard; when the incident has become, in this, our information age, old news – we get, at long, long last, the liberal feminist response.  A “peep”, as it were.

So it came to pass that NOW President, Terry O’Neill, has put out a less than urgent statement condemning the recent choice of songs “The Jimmy Fallon Show” used to introduce Michele Bachmann.  Bravo, Terry.  But – where were you when it actually happened?  Conducting abortion terrorism in New York City?  You would have been better to have “never” rather “than late” responded to what was clearly a planned and staged opportunity to use “The Jimmy Fallon Show” not merely as a platform for comedy, but to entrap a conservative woman, Michele Bachmann, and do to her what they did to Carry White at the prom.  (Remember that bucket of pig’s blood?)

And, as if this has been the first time in all of recorded human history a conservative woman was slandered, Terry writes she is “heartened to see that conservatives are learning how hostility toward women in public life functions and how it feels to be on the receiving end.”

If anyone is rightly characterized as a “lyin’ ass bitch”, it is Terry O’Neill, any liberal feminist who considers “hostility toward women” more damaging to women that undergoing an unnecessary abortion.

Should you really want to know how “hostility toward women in public life functions” try watching The View, or the “Rachel Maddow Show”, or any program with a liberal woman host.  Listen to Randi Phodes or Janeane Garofalo speak ill of women who are conservative.  The more liberal a woman is, the more “hostility” she will exhibit “toward [conservative] women”.  That is how liberal women “function in public life”.  That is how conservative women have always “felt on the receiving end” – because conservative women have always been “on the receiving end” of slurs, slander and derogatory remarks made by the American left, both men and women.

Terry, “can’t help but wonder why their outrage is limited to those they condemn as liberals for taking shots at the Bachmanns and the Palins of the world.”  Much as liberals feel comfortable belittling and degrading blacks who are conservative, so liberals also feel right at home degrading women of any color who are conservative.  Conservatives, including men, with a few exceptions, can, and have, passionately and fully embraced conservative women without feeling emasculated by their presence.  Liberals, including women, look upon conservative women with as much hate in their eyes as liberal blacks look upon Herman Cain.  Where do conservatives ever speak so derogatory of  women?  And when they do, such as the infamous Don Imus “nappy headed hoes” remark, what happens?

Terry complains about “Rush Limbaugh and his ilk using sexist, racist, classist, homophobic remarks against anyone who doesn’t march to his extremist drumbeat”.  And yet, this is how Terry O’Neill, President of NOW looks upon pro-live activists who don’t “march to her extremist drumbeat”.   One could call Terry a “racist” if she opposed the nomination of Clarance Thomas to the Supreme Court, which is hard to imagine she didn’t.  Or for her “racist” and even “sexist” opposition to Herman Cain, which she does oppose.  Much like Terry probably found Clarance Thomas guilty before the lack of evidence against him in the Anita Hill incident was dismissed, she certainly finds Herman Cain guilty of sexual harassment before any real evidence is produced against him.  Terry, as a liberal woman, is just as deeply threatened by conservative women as liberal blacks are deeply threatened by conservative blacks.

With something in her eyes, perhaps tears, (but unlikely) Terry looks to this moment as a breakthrough with a childlike hopefulness, baiting her breath, and conservatives, when she says, “Now, will the right wing start policing its own?”  If these types of slurs were ever to become an arrestable offense (because they are not a fire-able one when liberals do it to conservatives) it will be interesting to see, how rapidly, how many positions open up at MSNBC and CNN, and on The View, and other such programs and stations that regularly demean, degrade and insult conservative women.

Liberals, including women, and Terry O’Neill, will continue to debase conservative women.  After-all, if liberal women, like Terry O’Neill, President of NOW, are at ease killing unborn girls in the womb, how much actual distress does it cause them to hurl an insult here and there at the “Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins of the world”?

Terry O’Neill states, “I’m not holding my breath.”  Well, neither should you, or any of  us, hold our breath. That is like saying – will NOW stop supporting the killing of unborn children? 

Are you going to “hold your breath” over that one?

Of Michelle Goldberg: When “Mississippi Women Win” The Unborn Lose, As Does Humanity

Michelle Goldberg has a piece out in the Daily Beast touting victory for the women of Mississippi over the defeat on November 8 of the Personhood Amendment proposition.  “Mississippi Women Win” is the title of her piece, and it illustrates a very important point.  Michelle contends that the women in Mississippi, and probably women all across America, in her view, have won something – the right to continue legally killing their unborn children.  She is right about that.  However, and quite disturbingly, Michelle seems over satisfied with this.

She writes:

It was the latest bit of evidence that the American right has overestimated public support for its agenda.

Our “agenda” is one of life, and of recognizing the value of life, that human life in fact begins at conception, which is a scientific fact, and has been for some time now.  Our “agenda” is to provide legal protection for the unborn, from those women that have been intentionally misled and outright lied to by Planned Parenthood, NARAl, NOW, etc. that killing their unborn child is nothing more than having a mole removed.

She continues:

Until now, most attacks on reproductive rights have been aimed at the margins, eroding Roe v. Wade bit by bit. They’ve affected minors, or poor women, or women needing late-term abortions in situations that most people imagine they’ll never be in.

Notice Michelle Goldberg refers to abortion as “reproductive rights”.  It’s a bit of sleazy and thoughtless manipulation of reality on Michelle’s part.  What does “reproductive rights” conjure in the minds of anyone?  In other words, if one knows little or knowing about abortion, does abortion even come to mind when they hear “reproductive rights”?  Because what Michelle is conveying is that ‘attacks on reproductive rights” are really attacks on the “rights” that women have to kill their unborn children.  But if she said it that way, more women would become suspicious.  For all of Michelle’s feminism, she is intent on keeping women in the dark, and uneducated, when it comes to abortion.

She further says that the attack on Roe vs. Wade has “affected minors”.  How?  In other words, a “minor” who engages in sex and becomes pregnant, a “minor” who desires to kill the child rather than have the courage to face the consequences of her actions – to be a woman – ought to be free simply dispense of the “mistake”?  And we should accept that?

Of “poor women”, Michelle laments that even they are not immune from pro-life responders; that poverty is justification for killing an unborn child.  And who pays for the abortion when a woman is too poor to pay for it herself?  Obviously, we the taxpayers are the ones Michelle and other pro-abortion supporters want paying the price for irresponsibility; a most monstrous lust she and they have in seeing us pay for the killing of an unborn child.

Of “the need for late term abortion”, Michelle does not understand, or is too ignorant to know that there are no “situations most people” can’t “imagine” to justify the killing of a child so late in pregnancy.  Unless there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother, which, in this day and age, is extremely rare, there are “no women needing late term abortions”, as Michelle passionately, but misguidedly, claims.

Says Goldberg:

Amendment 26 was different. It would have interfered with the health care of middle-class women and crime victims, and even the most conservative voters in the country weren’t willing to do that.

How, perchance, does not having an abortion “interfere” with “the health care of middle class women and crime victims”?  In other words, what Michelle is really conveying here is her feminist belief that pregnancy and motherhood itself, is an interference with middle class women, and that having a child “interferes” with a woman’s status as middle class; that having an abortion is merely a part of “healthcare” which presumably all middle class women ought to have the right to enjoy; that for a woman of  “middle class” status to not have an abortion jeopardizes her “middle class” status, and might drive her into poverty.  So far as the “health” aspect goes, our healthcare system in America is the best in the world.  If a woman has a health issue, and is pregnant, unless it becomes legitimately life threatening for her to continue the pregnancy, there are solutions to protect both mother and child.

Of “crime victims”, Michelle can only be referring to rape.  Is a child less of a human being if it is created by, and a product of, rape?  We who are pro-life contend that even in the case of rape, though we acknowledge the violence involved, the unborn ought to be protected from violence itself.  Women who cannot emotionally or psychologically care for a child, knowing it was created out of lust rather than love, ought not be forced to keep the child, but neither ought she have the right to simply discard it, throw it away as if the child was something not human, something not alive.

Of  “most conservative voters”, Michelle is as well wrong on that count.  “Most conservative voters” in Mississippi and in America are staunchly pro-life.  Unfortunately, it appears that the language in Proposition 26 was too vague and misled people into believing its passage would have created more uncertainly than clarity.  Perhaps it was all the pro-abortion activists that had descended on Mississippi as locusts descend on a field of corn, or wheat, and ate alive that uncertainty of Mississippi voters yet unsure whether this Personhood Amendment reached too far into the lives of women.

So, back to work on redrawing a new proposition that, it is hoped, will be unmistakeably clear in its language and its meaning.  If the pro-life movement in Mississippi has learned anything about this defeat, it ought to have learned that language, clarity and meaning are imperative; that if they attempt to pass another Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, or elsewhere, in other states, using the same language as in Proposition 26, it is very likely to be defeated as well.

And what has Michelle Goldberg learned?  She finishes her column by writing:

They (Mississippi voters) may pay lip service to the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being whose rights trump those of women, but they’re not willing to carry it to its clear, cruel conclusions.

In other words, Michelle has learned nothing.  “Its clear, cruel conclusions” is the violent act of abortion itself, not, as she and other pro-abortion supports contest, the defeated proposition.  And “a fertilized egg” is a human being, as science has already confirmed.  Indeed, life, the sanctity of life, ought to “trump” a woman’s desire to indiscriminately kill it.

But Michelle Goldberg, for all her “feminism” would rather all women remain ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the reality of abortion.

What is it she is afraid women will learn?

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?

Joe Biden Invokes Rape for “Jobs”, Predictably NOW Defends…

Out of work?  Nothing to do?  Bored out of your mind?  Go rape a woman!  While you’re at it – kill her.  Why not, you’re entitled according to liberal Democrats and the National Organization of (screwed up, fundamentally deranged, anti-life ) Women.

Vice President, Joe Biden is out cheer-leading and pom-pomming Obama’s failed “Jobs” bill, claiming that without it being passed more women will be raped and murders will rise.  Apparently both Biden and NOW are incredibly distrusting of, and deeply apprehensive with, people who are out of work.  “Idle hands”, etc.  And with all the idle time Biden has to make idiotic comments like that, should we worry about his hands being somewhere they ought not to be?  Perhaps that depends on how close he was to, say, Ted Kennedy and other like-minded liberal Democrats.

NOW’s President, Terry O’Neill, said:

I think he is concretely worried that with fewer police on the beat crime will go up.  I think he is imagining the lives of real people.  That is not a device — that is an actual ability to know what everyday people go through.”

It is not a far stretch to believe Joe Biden “imagines the lives of real people” considering the fact that he does have a very overactive imagination to begin with.  She is right when she says “that is not a device”.  Biden’s imagination is a very real part of his essence and his vice-presidency.  And it shows just how bored he must really be with it, if he, in fact, utilizes his time in an “actual ability to know what everyday people go through” and all he can come up with is fewer jobs equals more rapes and murders.

Terry, typical of a liberal hypocrite, is not as worried about there being fewer police on the streets as she is worried about Obama losing the 2012 election to a pro-life Republican.  Naturally she will demean, lower and degrade her own self, and throw all American women “under the bus” in the process, in order to help Obama win reelection.

She continued:

The people that are blocking jobs legislation really don’t care, and don’t have an idea of what its like.  They don’t have an idea what it’s like to have your child in a classroom of 45 kids and one teacher — and that is what we are looking at if these kinds of jobs are not restored.  They don’t have a clue what its like to be threatened with rape, and there are not enough police officers to come and prevent it or stop it.”

First – the “people” blocking this insane jobs, business and economic growth “killing” bill care enough about Americans to veto it, knowing that not only will zero jobs in the private sector be created, but more jobs in the private sector will be lost as a result of the higher taxes which would have been levied on business to pay for Obama’s “anti” jobs bill.

Secondly – go back to the 1950’s and look at class sizes.  Despite the fact that class size was larger then than now, education was better back in the 1950’s than it is now.  Large class size does not necessary or automatically mean a worse education for the pupil.  What it does mean, in Terry’s mind, is fewer teachers, (female teachers as far as she is concerned); fewer union members; fewer people contributing dues to a teacher’s union; fewer, presumably but not absolutely, liberals to improperly teach American children the correct history of America.

Thirdly – Clueless Terry, typical of her arrogant and condescending, anti-conservative woman rhetoric must think only liberal women get raped, are “threatened” with rape or have an understanding of rape.  Indeed, conservative women not only know of rape but are also the victims of rape, just as liberal women.  Unless she has some other date to show rapists magically only target liberals.

Fourthly – increasing the number of police never prevents crimes like murder or rape.  People’s attitudes and values toward human life is more a factor in preventing murder and rape, and crime in general.  In other words, the more conservative a person is the more likely they are to be pro-life and therefore less likely to commit murder or rape in the first place.

Conversely, the more liberal, the more anti-life a person is (like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Terry O’Neill and people in their camp) the more likely they are to commit murder and rape.  And that means, ironically, that Terry ought to be more worried about the people around her, in her inner circle, (liberals) and people she supports directly, raping and murdering her and other women than the people she presumes “don’t care” and “are blocking jobs legislation and don’t have an idea of what its like…”

Terry further added (for posterity, or perhaps just for a sick laugh):

I think it is absolutely legitimate to demand that these uncaring un-empathic legislators get a clue,”

For someone, like Terry, who is absolutely “uncaring” when it comes to the lives of unborn children, she is the one who ought to “get a clue”.  When it comes to rape and murder, what she supports – abortion – is nothing less than rape and murder itself.  Every time an unborn child is aborted it is raped of its life and unceremoniously, “uncaring”ly and “absolutely” slaughtered in the womb.

Is it not  “legitimate to demand” then “that these uncaring un-empathic” pro-abortion, anti-life liberals like NOW President, Terry O’Neill, “get a clue”?

Too much to hope for?

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”?

Abortion Is Murder; Abortionists are Murderers: Women Who Have Abortions Are Accessories To Murder – Plain And Simple

(Well, technically, from a legal standpoint, it’s only “killing”, not murder.  So, for those of you who are pro-abortion, yes indeed – abortion is just “killing”; abortionists are just “killers”, and women who have abortions are really nothing more than accessories to that “killing”.  From a “legal” stand point, anyway.  Is that more comforting?)

What is it with liberal Democrats always going around accusing conservative Republicans of wanting to kill everyone?  You’ve got Allen Grayson, Democrat, from Florida, giving his “Die Quickly”, speech, screaming that Republicans who opposed Obamacare wanted to kill Americans.

Now comes Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, from Planet California, on the House floor decrying and denouncing Republicans, who she believes are letting Women ‘Die on the Floor’ Without Medical Care because they are trying to pass a bill that would prevent American taxpayers from funding abortion, which would otherwise force religious hospitals to perform those abortions, and the legal “killing” (not murder) of an unborn child, and for which millions of Americans (those that value human life) find offense in supporting with their taxes.

Despite Pelosi’s incoherent blather, the bill passed in the House today.

There seems to always be a double standard with liberals in that while they demand all taxpayers be forced to contribute money which would be used to abort – kill an – unborn child, when Republicans try to pass another bill that has “choice” in it, a bill that instead of killing children is an attempt to help place them in a better education environment, like a school vouchers bill, those same liberals are dead set against that type of choice.  The reason?  Passing such a school vouchers bill would “conflict” with those Americans that are “uncomfortable” with their taxes going to religious schools.  But using tax dollars to kill an unborn child seems to not pose any moral “uncomfortableness”.

It’s a fact.  Conservatives value human life.  Liberals don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen – there are no Republicans, there are no hospitals in America, that would “let a woman die on the floor” of a hospital if her life was indeed, and legitimately – and really – in serious danger.  And if her life was in serious danger from complications due to a pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was to abort the fetus, than that clearly, in the minds of the vast, vast majority of all Americans (including fundamentalist Christians) is moral and proper and understandable.  With the exception of a very few crazies and crackpots, there is no one who would force, by law, or by any other means, a women to give birth to a child if that meant it would end her own life in the process.  Some women do this of there own free will, and that is a bravery to honor and to be commended.

What Nancy Pelosi is doing, which is what every other pro abortion organization does as well, by condemning Republicans who support and value human life, by throwing out phrases like “Republicans want to kill women” amounts to slander.  Nobody is suing, however.  It’s all political theater.  And not very entertaining.

The issue at hand is whether Americans ought to be forced to see their tax dollars go towards funding abortion, and whether religious hospitals ought to be forced to provide those abortion services against their religious beliefs, including non life threatening, abortions, and the reasons that compel a woman to seek an abortion rather than carry the child to term, give birth, then give it up for adoption if she really cannot psychologically or financially cope with raising the child herself.

Nobody condemns a woman for giving up her child, and nobody (except the very few crackpots) condemns the woman who has the abortion.  It is abortion, the act itself, which we condemn.  And we certainly condemn those pro abortion organizations which behave, and act, in irresponsible ways when it comes to disseminating information to women about their unborn child; that are quick to rush a woman to an abortion clinic to kill that child rather than find alternative solutions which allow for the child to at least be born; that put financial motives and gains ahead of everything else, especially the emotional needs and concerns of the woman being told to have the abortion.

In other words, what Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the gang are doing to women is an absolute act of betrayal to them.

Yes, abortion legally is just “killing”.  But morally and ethically it will always be murder.  And regardless of what one calls abortion, it still takes away a human life that might have had an opportunity to live.  That is what we in the pro-life movement are fighting for, and will continue to fight for.  Life!  And the high value we place on life.

What is the “high value” pro abortion groups place on abortion, and having an abortion?

‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion May Kill More Support For Abortion Than Unborn Children

Warning:  There are some graphic descriptions of abortion procedures in this column!

The Michigan Legislature Passed a ban on ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion and it won’t be long before Pro abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood and NARAL cry “murder”.

Michigan passed this ban its sponsor said because it –

Was necessary to establish sentencing guidelines for offenders and to help Michigan’s prosecutors and local police departments enforce the law, since the FBI does not have the resources to do so.” – State Sen. Goeff Hansen, Republican.

Partial birth abortion is the act of partially delivering a fetus and then killing it while it is still “partially” in the womb.  In other words, partial birth abortion is exactly what it sounds like.  And while the term was coined in 1995 by the National Right To Life Committee (NRLC) the term took its name from what was then a newly devised abortion procedure called dilation and extraction.

Before this procedure was developed, when a woman underwent a late term abortion, whereby the fetus was fully developed, (including having arms, legs, organs, a brain and a body) abortionists had to literally kill the child piece by piece in the womb, a risky procedure that, if done incorrectly, could harm or kill the woman as well as her unborn child, or leave her unable to conceive in the future.  Plus, it was a lot of extra work for the abortionist.  Only wanting to kill the child the dilation and extraction method was developed where the fetus was partially removed from the womb up to its head.  In order to fit through the cervix and be removed completely, a pair of scissors was used to puncture the head, which was then compressed and passed out through the cervix.  Now that seems like a lot easier way to kill an unborn child, doesn’t it?

Whether one wants to call it dilation and extraction or partial birth abortion, it is still an extraordinary gruesome procedure that, in the end, leaves the unborn child dead, and one scratching their head asking why anyone would support or consider this type of abortion, let alone any abortion, an acceptable approach to ending a viable pregnancy.  Who cares if the term “partial birth abortion” is, or was intended to be, politically motivated or not?  That it may have been is irrelevant.  It got the attention of a nation and got people talking about it and educating themselves on the procedure.  It is the use of a term which actually describes, and depicts, what is taking place during the abortion that outrages the pro abortion camp.  In other words, it’s much easier to imagine a “partial birth abortion” in ones mind than it is to imagine a “dilation and extraction” if one’s mind doesn’t already understand what “dilation” and “extraction” entails.

Yet, pro abortion groups, like the aforementioned, along with the ACLU have fought for years to keep this procedure legal, up until 2003 when the procedure was officially banned by the George W. Bush Administration, and in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban.

While pro abortion supporters have always maintained that this procedure was rare, and mostly occurred before the third trimester, because the ultimate goal of the procedure had to involve removing its entire body up to its head, the fetus had to have a body to begin with; a body well enough developed for an abortionist to perform the procedure.  Does it really matter at what point during the pregnancy a partial birth abortion occurs if its ultimate goal is to remove that body up to its head and then make a fatal puncture wound to its head?

Not in the minds of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and many other pro abortion groups.  For them, there never should have been a controversy to begin with because 1:  this procedure was often performed earlier than the third trimester, and 2:  their religious-like belief that abortion is both “private” and a “choice” between the woman and her doctor.

Their argument is that banning partial birth abortion is just another step in banning abortion in of itself.  They are right about that.  Abortion, because of Roe vs. Wade, can’t be outlawed completely until it can either first be overturned by the Supreme Court or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution – such as the Personhood Amendment – can be enacted.  Until then, abortion, in effect, must be done away with in the same manner as they would have an unborn child done away with – piece by piece.

Still, the more people know about partial birth abortion, how passionately it is supported by these groups, despite its gruesomeness, the more people will begin to realize that these groups will stop at nothing, and go out of their way, to keep abortion legal, regardless of the type of abortion being performed.  And the more people will come to understand how militant they are in their ant-life agenda.

So, while partial birth abortion may never again be legal anywhere in the U.S., in it’s death it may come back to haunt the very people that so vehemently supported it, and still do.

Killing Your Unborn Child (With A Little Help From Your Friend, Planned Parenthood)

Today, much like in the recent past, (since at least 1973 and Roe vs. Wade) when a girl becomes pregnant, especially if she is a teenager, the decision whether or not to carry the unborn child to term and give birth weighs heavy on her mind.  And matters are only made worse when she is a teenager and fearful of divulging to her parents what has happened.  So many questions, so few answers, and virtually no one to turn to.

Enter Planned Parenthood.  This organization has made it its unending goal in seeing that women and young girls of all ages who become pregnant, and, for whatever reason, are unwilling to bring a new life into the world or are fearful of the consequences this would entail, financial, emotional, psychological, etc. would have somewhere to turn to in their hour of need.  They do this regardless of a girl’s age or financial situation.

Planned Parenthood has set itself up as the savior of these women and young girls, and indeed, has rescued and saved millions of them from a fate that they, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women, NARAL, and a plethora of so called women’s advocacy groups deem as dire, depressing, and down right detrimental to every woman’s destiny – motherhood!

But that is what makes organizations like Planned Parenthood so evil.

Its own name – Planned Parenthood – is an oxymoron.  On the outside they are a benevolent charity, advocates for “women’s rights”, for helping to educate women and young girls in the facts of life, the birds and the bees and all thing concerning womanhood.  But once you go inside their building you realize they are only concerned with one thing – making money off the mistakes from the very people they purport to be fighting for.

Advocating “safe sex” and providing in depth information, books, pamphlets, videos, even condoms and training on how to properly affix one, Planned Parenthood has covered all the bases in the event a girl, in their view, “strikes out” by accidentally  “hitting a home run”.  Indeed, we can all feel the horror rushing through a young girl’s mind, any woman’s mind, who experiences an unintended pregancy and empathize with her in this uncertain time.

It is during this uncertain time that Planned Parenthood swoops in to “save the day” by taking advantage of a vulnerable, frightened girl, using this as their own opportunity to rape her of her dignity by providing her with a “safe” and “legal” solution to her problem, reiterating that she has the “right” to end her pregnancy without any negative consequences whatsoever, using a barrage of lies to make their case that ending a pregnancy is really no more a simple procedure than say brushing your teeth.

But this is of course a fallacy.

Planned Parenthood never divulges to these women and girls that what’s growing inside of them is indeed a human life, and became a human life at the moment of conception; that science and scientists have already shown beyond a shadow of doubt this to be fact; that sonograms can show to any pregnant woman there is a human life growing inside of her.  Without this knowledge prior to an abortion, many women suffer from depression, guilt and remorse after the procedure, after they learn the truth of what they have done.

To Planned Parenthood, however, what is now growing inside the female body is akin to a cancer and nothing more than an obstacle to their utopian vision of womanhood – absolute independence from men.  It must be removed forthwith!  Otherwise, she is forever lost, forever banished from experiencing this warped version of Eden where only women reside and men are not allowed.

Planned Parenthood considers it to be a death sentence to womanhood itself, once a woman or girl becomes pregnant and decides to give birth.  All hope of womanhood, of being independent and in control of one’s life is gone.  They believe it is better, indeed moral, to give a death sentence to the unborn child – which they vehemently deny even is a human life, although they know it is – rather than have the woman or girl suffer what they, and other pro-abortion “rights” organizations, deem the unbearable realization that comes with pregnancy and motherhood which is the acknowledgement that there are consequences to one’s action.  Abortion removes those consequences and erases all sense of responsibility; a clean slate, as it were, for a woman or girl to continue down what is essentially a dangerous and degrading path, one in which Planned Parenthood is now guiding, unbeknown to all the many women and girls who have been snared into their web.

Groups, pro life organizations, like  National Right To Life and Pro-Life Action League, exist to counter the lies and misinformation being spread by supporters of abortion rights.  For this, they have been labeled terrorists.  Read here to see how pro life groups are being portrayed.  It would be almost comical if unborn lives were not at stake.  Terrorists, by definition, instill and commit terror.  How is trying to prevent a girl or woman from killing her unborn child with important information pertaining to pregnancy and abortion an act of terrorism?  And why would the act of abortion itself not be considered terrorism, and therefore, by extension, why would abortionists not be considered the real terrorists?

Obviously, to Planned Parenthood, and all the others, terrorists are anything, anyone, that seeks to take away a huge source of income for them.  Because making money off, and from, abortion, is really why Planned Parenthood exists.

Abortion is, now in America, legal.  And although there are restrictions on the types of abortions, the times in which one may undergo an abortion procedure, the age of consent to obtain an abortion, etc., while abortion is “legal”, because we know as absolute fact that the fetus, the unborn child, is indeed a human life, and that the act of abortion is really the act of killing that unborn child, that human life, just because abortion may be “legal” does that in any way still make killing a human life moral?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: