The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “Planned Parenthood”

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.

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?

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Bombed – Very Suspicious

A small bomb exploded outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin, setting off a small fire which extinguished itself before firefighters were on the scene.

We who are legitimately pro-life condemn any action of violence, even if it from someone on the Right, and we hope the guilty party is captured and brought to justice.  This is something the Left cannot bring itself to do with its own.  Think Occupy Wall Street.  Think the New Black Panther Party.  Think Unions.  The Left has no problem with inciting or carrying out violence to further its own cause.  The Right opposes the use of violence, even to stop abortions from occurring or to scare abortion providers enough to not perform them.  The ends don’t justify the means, and two wrongs don’t make a right.  That won’t stop the Left from accusing the Right for this bombing, or continuing to insist the Right is the more violent of the two political sides.

What is suspicious about this is that the bomb itself was small – so small, in fact, that the damage was not great, and the fire it started was put out on its own, before fire fighters were on the scene.  Either the bomber was inexperienced with bombs, how to make them, where to place them for maximum effect, etc. – which is possible, or could it be that the bomb was placed by an abortion supporter in an attempt to masquerade as a pro-life lunatic on the fringe in order to gain sympathy for the pro-abortion side?  In other words, a sophisticated maniac, who wanted to blow up and abortion clinic because, in their warped mind, that was what God would want them to do, and in order to save babies from being aborted, would still possible enough of his/her faculty to build a bomb large enough, with enough explosive power to do the maximum amount of damage.  Such people also have an ego complex and want to be caught, and want to take credit for their actions.

Although we who are pro-life condemn the bombing of any building, including an abortion clinic, that will go in one ear and out the other of liberals who are eager to jump down the throats of pro-lifers, and looking for any kind of justification for their vitriol.

According to the most recent statistics from the National Abortion Federation, there were 114 violent attacks against abortion providers in 2011, including three physical assaults, one bombing, one incident of arson, 27 counts of vandalism and eight burglaries.

But over one million acts of violence against unborn children – abortion – still occurs every year.  Violence is not the answer to the abortion dilemma.  Changing laws that protect abortion, and changes hearts that support abortion is the answer.  Here is to hoping the guilty part is swiftly apprehended and appropriately punished.  And here is also hoping that abortion itself will soon be a thing of the past not through violence but through peace.

Women Do Use Birth Control And Contraception To Be Irresponsible Also

The whole flack over Fluke and contraception overshadows one reality.  There are still myriad women who do use birth control and contraception solely and exclusively in order to engage in all the carnal, irresponsible sex they can.  Conservatives, although we would admonish women, as well as men who do the same, for such behavior, we would never attempt to enact laws which would restrict a woman’s prerogative to be, well, we can’t say a “slut”, but there must be a word similar to it in style and character to describe such women.  For that is what they are.

Taking the pill once a day, or as needed to prevent pregnancy, as well as all the beneficial side affects which it helps relieve during that “time of the month”, cramps, bloating, constipation, irregular bleeding, heavier than normal bleeding, etc. is all well and good, and no one is trying to take that away from women.  There is a misunderstanding – intentionally – by every last liberal outpost to paint conservatives as anti-woman, and at war with woman, and trying to control and dominate women.  This, of course, from a rational point of view, could not be further from the actual truth, which liberals generally refrain from invoking.

There are at least three fundamental sticking points of disagreement we have with Sandra Fluke, and all liberals with regards to birth control and contraception.  And we will not budge on these issues:

1.  We will not pay for your birth control and contraception.  Except for the poorest of American women, every other woman in America can afford to purchase her own birth control and contraception.  There is already a law on the books, Title X, which provides for the rest of American women who legitimately cannot afford the cost.

The “real cost of birth control” depends on what a woman is actually intending using it for.  In other words, if a woman is really taking the pill to prevent the onset of negative health issues, then the cost is relatively cheap.  But lets not kids ourselves.  When we talk of birth control and contraception, we are also taking about IUD’s, Deprovera, RU-486, and other much more expensive drugs whose only intentions are to either prevent pregnancy or end it after it “accidentally” occurs.  The cost for these types of birth control and contraception can range from $100 on up.  Why should women get this for free just so they can go and engage in irresponsible sex?  And who ultimately is going to pay for it if they do?  And if all it is intended for is so that women can engage in sex without the consequences, why should society tolerate that if it is us that will eventually get stuck with the bill?  Remember, nothing is free.  Somebody will be stuck with that bill.

2.  Besides the birth control and contraception which prevents pregnancy, there are also types which are intended to end a pregnancy after it occurs.  The most recognized one being the morning after pill, or Plan B.  The vast majority of conservatives are pro-life – that means we value human life, including the unborn.  When a child is created in the womb, it is a human being at the moment of conception.  In other words, it is no less of a human being at the moment of conception, or thereafter, than at any time during its fetal development.

If women want to engage in irresponsible sex, no one is going to stop them through law.  However, if a pregnancy results, it is time for her to woman-up and accept the consequences like a woman.  By all means sue the man and get whatever income you can from him to help offset the cost of the pregnancy; and, if the woman chooses to keep the child, then whatever extra cost would be needed in order to care for the child.  Or – the woman, and the man, can get married.

What is absolutely unacceptable is forcing, through law, taxpayers to subsidize a woman’s sexually irresponsible behavior, paying for both the contraception to prevent the pregnancy, and what amounts to the abortion when an “accident” occurs.  Again, women who want to be irresponsible can be irresponsible.  But women who do ought not run to the government (i.e. the taxpayer) to bail them out when they do get in trouble.  In other words, if a woman truly believes her body is her own – don’t pawn it off on us.  Take control of your body by acting responsible, or suffer any consequences you brought on yourself, of your own free will, on your own.

And as for the life created in the womb after the irresponsible sex, you can be damn sure we will fight for laws which protect that life from being wantonly and maliciously destroyed.  You don’t want to suffer the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, don’t engage in sex.  Abstinence is still the only 100% effective solution in preventing pregnancy.

3.  Forcing religious institutions to cover the cost of birth control and contraception against their moral and religious convictions.  This, among other things, is unconstitutional.  And that is probably the only real point that needs to be made.  The Constitution grants religious institutions, hospitals, insurance providers, etc. from having to provide any type of service, to anyone, it deems to be morally objectionable based on its own religious values.

Sandra Fluke, and her controversy, is that she wanted Georgetown University, a Jesuit college, (a religious college) to pay for her contraception, and for birth control and contraception for all female students on campus in full with no co-pay.  She used a few examples of “health issues” some female students had to endure.  At no time did Sandra Fluke ever make an exception that would allow Georgetown to block students who wanted birth control and contraception not for “health” reasons” but because they wanted the contraception solely to engage in irresponsible sex, but did not want to deal with the “consequences”.

By all accounts, as we have learned about about the 30 year old Fluke, it appears she has had a personal agenda all along, and her only reason for going to Georgetown was to force it to provide free birth control and contraception.  It is peculiar, then, that Fluke would lambast the cost of tuition at Georgetown, and use its tuition cost as a reason why so many female students there could not afford contraception.

Every single student, the females included, knows Georgetown is a Jesuit college, and knows that in order to go there they must be willing to pay the tuition costs it sets.  They also know the policy Georgetown has set in place with regards to birth control and contraception.  Sandra Fluke certainly knew that before she enrolled.  In other words – nobody is forcing any of the “suffering” female Georgetown students to go to this particular college.  There are other colleges which are less expensive to attend, and which, if they did attend a less expensive college, they would have that much more money to cover whatever cost of birth control and contraception they needed for their own individual situation without having to make a silly spectacle of themselves on national television.

But at no time ought Georgetown University be compelled to pay for the birth control and contraception of any of its female students.  And remember – Nothing is free .  If Georgetown ever is forced to provide “free” birth control and contraception, they will likely, and obviously, pass that cost down to the rest of its students – which mean all of them will be paying for Sandra Fluke and every other female student to use birth control and contraception for whatever purpose they desire, including the desire to be sexually irresponsible.  That little issue was never taken off the table during Sandra’s “testimony”.

Birth control and contraception obviously have their good qualities, and they do aid in the relief of certain, specific health issues.  It is for those bad qualities we, as conservatives, will always reject and fight against.  We will not attempt to pass laws to regulate sex, but we will attempt to pass laws to regulate the consequences of that sex.  We will attempt to pass laws which circumvent the taxpayers from paying the bill for anyone to be sexually irresponsible.  We will attempt to overturn any laws – the contraception mandate, for example – which forces any religious institution to provide medications, pills, services, etc. that go against their religious objections.

If that offends any woman, or man for that matter, we are in for one hell of a long, drawn-out fight.  So be it, and – bring it on!

Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice

In America, most irrational behavior, to a degree, is Constitutionally protected.  It is when that behavior begins to threaten people, and threaten their lives that government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right to step in and put a stop to whatever irrational behavior is being exhibited.  Abortion, because it is the taking, and killing, of a human life (although it is “unborn”) is a threat to the very life of a child in the womb.  Therefore, that threat to life constitutes irrational behavior which is not Constitutionally protected.  As a result, government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right, a duty, and a moral obligation and responsibility to step in to protect and prevent the unborn child from being killed in the womb via abortion.

Women who would seek an abortion, rather than carrying the child to full term and giving birth, have been told for decades now that they have a Constitutional right to abortion.  And while the law recognizes a “woman’s right to choose”, there is, however, nothing in the Constitution itself that guarantees a woman with that much liberty.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on emotions rather than rationality.  It was also decided on both misinformation and a lack of information at the time.  The Supreme Court, then, was very adamant, in making its decision, that if ever there was any evidence to prove conclusively that a living human being was being aborted – not a “collection of cells” or a “blob of tissue” – that the abortion should not legally proceed.

In 1973, there were no ultrasounds or sonograms, or any type of cameras or other technologies in use, that could pierce through and see inside the womb and snap pictures of a fetus.  Well, we have that now, and have had that technology for quite some time.  Science has since proven that life does begin at conception.  In other words, at the very moment the male sperm meets and fertilizes the female egg there is a tremendous and instantaneous burst of activity.  Until fertilization, the egg merely waits, and millions of sperm die en route to the egg.

Now that this information exists, it is imperative Roe vs. Wade be revisited and subsequently overturned.   And while Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned, obviously the only reason why it hasn’t yet is the result of pro-abortion advocates pleading their support based on emotions rather than rationality.  That, and the fact their organizations, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are incredibly well funded, financed and organized, and are able to elect politicians and judges who will vote to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade by no means abolishes abortion or even makes it illegal.  It will merely revert the decision-making back to the states, who will then have more freedom to legislate abortion according to their own dictates.  It will then be the states, directly, which can make broad and sweeping changes to abortion law.  Some states will naturally have greater restrictions on abortion than others.  Of course, any restrictions on abortion outrage those who support abortion.  But if you look at the people who support abortion on demand (abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy) it is inherent that they are arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

Whatever slogan they happen to use, the whole “It’s our bodies, it’s our choice”, “right to privacy”, “women’s rights”, “women’s heath”, freedom of choice”, mantra all amounts to an emotional outcry, and one that stems from a bygone era that saw many women dying from complicated pregnancies.  Obviously no one, with a rational mind, wants to see, or compel, women to undergo such risky pregnancies by law, and to put their lives in danger, by law, in order to deliver a baby.

But, how is abortion justified when there are no “health” risks to the mother?  How is abortion justified in cases where the mother simply feels she is not ready to give birth; where she feels she cannot adequately or financially care for the child after it has been born; where she has the impression and fear that after the child is born it might experience “neglect, abuse and hatred” by its parents?

These are all emotional outbursts, not rational or clear thinking.  Very few women in America die due to pregnancy any longer.  And where there is a legitimate life threatening issue that cannot be corrected without the abortion, there is no law in America, and there is virtually no one in America that would support such a law, which mandates a woman must sacrifice her own life for her unborn child.  Likewise, if there is a legitimate and specific “health” issue, which is known, which has a name, and research to go along with it; which is documented to be a threat to the woman’s life, and where abortion is yet the only alternative to save the health, and therefore the life, of the woman – no such a law in America now exists, or would ever exist, which would put the life of the unborn child ahead and above that of the woman.  Conservatives support life, and that includes the life of the mother.  We are not so callous, not so irrational in our own thinking that we would intentionally and knowingly put a woman’s life at risk, even if that meant the unborn child would have to be sacrificed.

Rather, it is the rabidly pro-abortion supporters who put emotions ahead and above life itself, and support the destruction of unborn life for any reason a woman would give as validation for having the abortion.  Hence the “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” mantra, and the nonsense about the “war on women” and men dominating and controlling women and their bodies.  There is no war on women being waged in America with regards to “domination” and “control” of women.  This is simply irrational and emotionally charged doggerel.  The war being waged is a war for life, and the sanctity of life.

Since there are virtually no deaths that occur with pregnancy, even from complications of pregnancy, in modern-day America, what valid reason – not emotional – is there for killing  an unborn child, and why do certain women still demand a right to legally kill and unborn child and fight fiercely to have that right protected?  And why do these pro-abortion women, when there are many millions of women who are just as adamant in their pro-life position, remain staunchly opposed to allowing women seeking an abortion to have as much information about their unborn child as is possible?  Why do pro-abortion women so vehemently condemn ultrasounds when an ultrasound can prove there is indeed an unborn child in the womb?  Invasive?  “Rape”, they claim.  Even if it is a trans-vaginal ultrasound, the “instrument” used is far less menacing than is the instrument used to “remove” the unborn child from the womb.

It can only be gathered that pro-abortion women have one or more ulterior motives compelling them to keep a woman seeking an abortion from knowing the truth.  Again, emotions over rationality.  If a woman is shown a picture of her child as it is in her womb, even the slightest indication of humanity in that woman’s heart, which then would lead to a change of heart, is worrisome to pro-abortion supporters, in particular liberal feminists who despise childbirth and motherhood which they feel represents living in the “Stone Age”.  Is that rationality or emotions?

Ought we to allow abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn life, an innocent human being, based off of any number of emotional responses a woman might be going through?  Ought we allow ourselves to give into the irrationality and emotions pro-abortion advocates use to sway us, to lull us, to silence those of us who are pro-life, who value life, who fight for life?

If we do, aren’t we just as culpable, just as guilty, just as reckless as they are that support abortion on demand through emotions rather than rationality?  Where is the rationality in that?

The Unborn Deserve Better Than Selfish Pro-Abortion Women Who Would Rather They Be Killed In The Womb

Shannon Bradley-Colleary says she is pro-“choice” because she loves her kids.  And she goes on with a lengthy pregnancy story, and a very difficult one, which she sums up by saying she wished the daughter she gave birth to, via c-section, had never been born.  Why?  In Shannon’s own words:

I realized I’d rather Clare never be born than be born into a home where she might be neglected, abused, unwanted or unloved.”

This is what makes pro-abortion women so despicable and disgusting, and why it is so imperative we, who are pro-life, continue to fight for the lives of the unborn, who have no voice of their own.  Is there anything more pathetic, more selfish, more offensive, more morally destructive than a pregnant mother, like Shannon, who wishes her unborn child was dead, was never given the opportunity to live and to know life over something so trivial than what Shannon fears might happen?  Shannon is yet another prime example of how truly evil and demented and heartless human beings can be when it comes to the unborn.  She plays off the “it’s my body, it’s my choice” schtick, but it goes much deeper than that.

Here we have a woman who would wish her child dead, and any child, for fear it may grow up “neglected, abused or unloved”.  So just kill it in the womb and spare it all the possible trouble and heartache and grief it might endure if it was given the chance to live.  But, whatever you do – don’t let it live, don’t let it breathe life, taste life, experience life.  Kill the unborn child before it knows life, because when it does know life – it probably will want to be alive more than dead.  And, oh, what a “burden” it then would become for its mother.

Isn’t there a correlation between those children that are neglected, abused and unloved with having parents that never wanted them in the first place?  Isn’t it true that for those parents who have an unplanned child, there is more hostility and resentment from its parents, and therefore more abuse, physical and/or emotional?  In other words, for those parents who plan a child, are they planning that child so that once it is born they can abuse it, neglect it, and hate it all its life?  Does that make sense?

Children who are abused, neglected and unloved are more than likely to be born to parents who, while they wanted the sex at the time, either didn’t use protection, or used inferior contraception, thus a pregnancy occurred, and a life was created.  Did Shannon plan her pregnancy, or did she and her husband just have sex one night and carelessly forget the protection?

Perhaps it is Shannon who is trying to spare herself, not her unborn child, from grief and heartache.  Is is possible that Shannon, and many other women would support killing  a child in the womb – abortion – not because they think they are doing the unborn child any favors, but to do themselves a favor, to spare themselves from some unforeseen tragedy that may or may not occur sometime in the future?  Is Shannon killing her unborn child as a way to shield herself, and hide herself, from some shame or guilt of her own making, and using her unborn child as the scapegoat?  Who the hell in their right mind kills an unborn child, and deprives it of life, because of some overblown fear it might grow up and be deprived of a good life?

Shannon is the one who is being sick and twisted, and ought to have her tubes tied by law.  Would you want a woman like this around your kids?  How safe are her own children?  If Shannon felt like killing one of her unborn children because of a dreamt-up fear it might not enjoy its life, what is going to happen to Shannon’s children on those days they feel depressed and sad, or have a tummy ache or a headache?  Is Shannon going wish she had aborted them as well?  After-all, when one is not feeling well in the head or the mind they too are being deprived of something at that particular time; they too are feeling neglected and unloved, and they are abusing themselves over their own frustrations of feeling depressed.  Shannon’s children, then, by her own standards, are perfect candidates for post-birth abortions.

Says Shannon:

There are also situations, in my opinion, where abortion is the only humane path to take for both mother and child. I remain firmly in the pro-choice camp not just because a woman should have the “right to choose” (although that is a powerful platform for me), but because every child deserves quality of life and when a child is unwanted there’s a much higher risk he’ll perpetuate the problem, having unwanted children of his own, if he even survives childhood.

Ladies and gentlemen – what real favors, if any, are we doing for unborn children by killing them in the womb, by depriving them of life, by not giving them an opportunity to live, by ending their lives, sparing them, the agony of life itself?  Aren’t we really killing the child in the womb to spare ourselves?  And aren’t we using trivialities like “neglect, abuse and being unloved” to satisfy our own guilt for having so cowardly killed a human being in the womb?

Shannon isn’t trying to spare an unborn child.  She isn’t trying to be humane.  She has clearly demonstrated herself to be too selfish and too shallow a human being to think about anyone but herself.  It is because of women, like Shannon, so many millions of babies have been aborted.  It is because of women, like Shannon, this evil monstrosity continues, and why so many like-minded evil and twisted women proudly join Shannon in their fight to keep abortion alive.

But, keep this in mind – how else is abortion kept alive, other than by taking away a human life?  And for what?  Humanity is not perfect, and every single human being is, has, and will have to deal with all manner of calamities throughout the course of their lives.  Shannon’ solution is to kill them in the womb before they ever have a chance to encounter a problem in life.  The problem with that is, by killing a child in the womb before it experiences any “problems” they will never have the chance to solve those problems, and move on with their lives, stronger than they were before.  Is that rational?

Do any of us really love our own children as much as Shannon purportedly loves her children that we wish we would have just killed them in the womb to spare them all the grief and suffering they may, and to some extend would, endure throughout their lives?  Would any of us have been born, if we all had parents who thought so stupidly as Shannon?  Would there even be a future with children in it, if we all thought as Shannon does, and began systematically killing our children in the womb?  Is this the best reason for why anyone would want to be pro-“choice”?

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?

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?

Why The Left Opposes Ultrasounds For Women Seeking Abortion

An unborn child is a living, breathing, human being.  Planned Parenthood knows it.  NARAL and NOW knows it.  Cecile Richards and Terry O’Neill knows it.  Everyone in the abortion business knows that an unborn child is in fact a living, breathing human being.  Because of how corrupt and deceitful, and dishonest they all are – they will do anything to keep women from finding out the truth.  Why?  Obviously because most women are not as cold-hearted as Planned Parenthood and those liberal, pro-abortion feminists who will fight to keep abortion alive and well at any cost.  And speaking of cost, getting an abortion is expensive, which, as a result, makes a lot of money for Planned Parenthood and all abortion providers.

What happens when more women, who are provided with ultrasounds, realize that there really is a living, breathing human being inside of them, and not the “blob of tissue” or “collection of cells” they were erroneously told their fetus was?  Women who are given ultrasounds, by in large, will opt not to have the abortion.  That’s not good for Planned Parenthood’s business – and abortion is their business.  So naturally they are willing to use any and every dirty trick and cheap shot in the book to keep the abortions rolling along.

They have found a way to demonize ultrasounds.  They are calling ultrasounds “rape”.  The idea came about after the state of Virginia passed a law requiring women seeking abortion to have an ultrasound done first, much to the chagrin of Planned Parenthood and Slate contributor, Dalhia Lithwick , who asks the question, “Where’s the outrage”?

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

Of course the idea of “rape” is preposterous and ludicrous.  It may be uncomfortable.  But then, how comfortable is having the abortion?  It’s certainly not a very pleasant experience for the unborn child.  Dalhia’s use of the word “rape” only degrades and softens the overall meaning of rape and its powerful connotations and implications.  In other words, cry “rape” too often, much like crying wolf, and people soon begin to ignore you.  Having the ultrasound is of vital importance in that it is the best way in which to prove to a woman, who may otherwise be legitimately unsure whether or not there is an actual child inside of her (because she has been brainwashed so long into thinking that human life does not begin until after the child is born) there actually is a living breathing human being inside of her, even at six to twelve weeks.

Says Dalhia:

“Of course, the bill is unconstitutional. The whole point of the new abortion bans is to force the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade. It’s unconstitutional to place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, although it’s anyone’s guess what, precisely, that means.”

This is almost laughable if it were not such a serious nature.  There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring a woman to undergo an ultrasound.  There is no “undue burden” on the woman.  There is, on the other hand, great “burden” placed on the head of Planned Parenthood, which cannot rationally explain away the fact that they are helping women kill their unborn children.  Naturally when more women find out they have been duped by Planned Parenthood they will be outraged and stop supporting them politically and financially.  Dalhia is also having a hard time understanding what is meant by “undue burden”.  She seems, however, to understand the full definition of what it means to terminate a pregnancy.  Yet, she still support abortion.  What does “that mean”, and what does that tell you about Dalhia?

She is also very attuned to evidence.  Writes Dalhia:

“Never mind that the evidence indicates that women forced to see ultrasound images opt to terminate anyhow.”

Well, let us accept that as fact for a moment.  Dalhia wants to convince us, and all women, that ultrasounds, even though they prove the existence of an unborn child inside a woman’s womb, are useless and irrelevant based on the “evidence” that women will still choose abortion.  The facts concerning ultrasound and what women decide to do are a little bit different that what Dalhia has provided.  Many women actually do choose life over death, thus saving many unborn children from a terrible and inhumane fate, and the women themselves from making a decision they will come to regret for the rest of their lives.

Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business.  It is not their only business, but it does provide a large source of revenue.  Planned Parenthood’s mission is to keep as many women out of the home and in the workplace as they can by convincing women that children, and having families, prevents them from realizing their true potential and value; that once they start a family, caring for their children becomes the number one priority and having a job, being an independent woman, and equal to a man, (in the liberal feminist view) is a deterrent which may have to be prolonged or never come to fruition.  Both scenarios are impossible for liberal feminists to tolerate.

To Planned Parenthood, women having children (unless they are rich enough to pay someone else to raise them) kills the dream of women’s equality.  However, Planned Parenthood, and liberal feminists, still want women to “enjoy themselves” sexually.  So when pregnancy does occur unexpectedly, which it does many tens of thousands of times each year, abortions are the solution, and Planned Parenthood is there waiting.  And as quickly as they want you in, they want you out, before you can change your mind.  Ultrasounds make the abortion time longer, and that time allows a woman to think about whether or not she is making the right and the best decision.  And once she sees the picture of her unborn child, often seeing that picture is what changes her mind.

And that is why the Left opposes women having an ultrasound.  That puts the Left directly in a bind and a tough position to defend itself rationally and logically.  Is it safe to say that is an “undue burden” the Left does not, cannot deal with?

Dalhia would have the audacity to demand “where is the outrage” in having a woman undergo an ultrasound before she has the abortion.  The Left knows abortion is the killing of an unborn child.  Where is our outrage at the Left for their continued support and consent of such a barbaric and inhumane practice?

Donna Brazile, A “Strategist”, Equates The Killing Of Unborn Children With McCarthyism

Donna Brazile would make a lousy chess player, or a player in any game of strategy.  (She is a Democrat strategist by they way)  Brazile has just positioned herself as a pawn in the game of abortion rights, defending her queen, Planned Parenthood, against those “right-wing aggressors set to remake everything in America in their own image”.  It was a sacrificial move on Brazile’s part.

In her quest to demonize conservatives, Brazile has invoked McCarthyism, and uses it to compare what Joseph McCarthy did to American citizens accused of being communist sympathizers back in the 1950’s to what “right-wing aggressors” are doing to Planned Parenthood and “women’s health” in 2012.  McCarthyism was described as a witch hunt.  Is it a witch hunt “right-wing aggressors” are conducting against Planned Parenthood and abortion rights?  Well, liberals feminists have been described as witches, haven’t they?

Brazile says:

“Like McCarthy himself, they [those “right-wing aggressors”] often pick targets unprepared to defend themselves.”

Hmm.  Now translate “right-wing aggressors often pick targets unprepared to defend themselves” and transfer her statement onto a chess board and into a “move” – what would be her opponent’s response to that?  Would her opponent crush her right then and there, or would he/she toy with her for a while?

First of all, whom is Brazile referring “right-wing aggressors” are targeting?  Planned Parenthood itself?  Or the women who would use Planned Parenthood to obtain an abortion?  Or both?  Secondly, it’s a stupid and a brash move on Brazile’s part to compare “right-wing aggression” against Planned Parenthood, and abortion, with anything that was “McCarthyism” or connected with Senator Joseph McCarthy.

McCarthyism, albeit over played and over-dramatized, involved uncovering and identifying American traitors and conspirators who had embraced communism and were helping Russia to weaken America from within.  It was a scandalous affair which ruined the lives and professional careers of a number of Hollywood actors, directors and other affiliates, journalists, and others, many of whom either were not communists to begin with, or had been but renounced the ideology years earlier.

Thirdly, does Brazile ( a presumed strategist) really want to use language like “targets unprepared to defend themselves”?  What an absolute abysmal failure Brazile is as a strategist, and especially to use that as her opening “move”.

“Like McCarthy himself, in the name of defending American principles, they [“right-wing aggressors”] seek to bring down patriotic Americans and important American institutions.”

What “patriotic Americans” and what “important American institutions” is Brazile talking about?  Is Planned Parenthood really an important American institution”?  Does being a pro-abortion supporter, and an advocate for killing unborn children, make one a “patriotic American”?  What the hell kind of strategy is Brazile using to win her game?

“And like McCarthyism itself, they [“right-wing aggressors”] will continue to succeed in poisoning our civic culture until America’s broad mainstream is willing to help our institutions stand up to these attacks, even if taking a side invites controversy.”

How does taking a pro-life position “poison our civic culture”?  It is in fact Brazile’s poisonous pro-abortion position, along with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all liberal feminists who are “poisoning our civic culture” with their anti-life agenda.  Brazile is the one “willing to help institutions” which would provide women with abortions and baby killing inducing drugs.  “America’s broad mainstream” is in fact pro-life, not pro-abortion.  And Brazile “invite controversy” by demanding American taxpayers be forced to pay the cost of “free” contraception to all women.  Brazile “invites controversy” by demanding all Catholic and religious hospitals be forced to provide contraception against their moral and religious convictions.

“The effort to withdraw funding for Planned Parenthood [from Komen for the cure] that came to light in the last few weeks was just the latest symptom of this problem. Attacks on reproductive health care are nothing new, of course.”

Ah, the pieces on the board are moving as Brazile keeps making irrational choices with her pieces.  But the chess master continues to toy with her; lets her fall further into his/her trap for the sheer amusement of watching her make a fool of herself.  So Komen acted under pressure by “right-wing aggressors” in its decision to defund its grants to Planned Parenthood? (Which it since rescinded).  “Right-wing aggressors” are witch hunters and McCarthyists for going after Planned Parenthood, for standing up for human life and the value of human life against the real “aggressors” who would not only demand a “right to privacy” in killing an unborn child, but would also demand the American taxpayer flip the bill for the contraception and the abortion which kills the unborn children?

“Support for that basic health care used to be a bipartisan issue, and Republicans from Richard Nixon to Sen. Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to presidents) were staunch supporters. But for years, a concerted minority that is concentrated in—but not limited to—the Republican Party has made it their mission to politicize the issue at all costs.”

The fact that that support, which Republicans used to have for abortion, has dwindled proves that America has become much more pro-life than pro-abortion in the past forty years.  Because it is much easier to show the consequences of abortion, to show women seeking abortion there is indeed a human being inside of her, using sonograms – not a blob of tissue or collection of cells – more Americans now have a better understanding of abortion and when human life begins.  More Americans, because they are not the rabid pro-abortion advocates Brazile is, have shunned and abandoned the abortion rights agenda.  Brazile’s strategy is outdated.  Brazile herself is outdated.  Her moves are easy to calculate.  She has no tricks up her sleeve which cannot be countered, met and checked.

If you were to play a game of chess with Brazile, and she were to use a similar strategy as she uses to defend Planned Parenthood and abortion rights by comparing conservatives and Republicans, “right-wing aggressors”, with McCarthyism, would you play the game with her?  Would you crush her right away, or toy with her for a while?

Knowing what a pathetic strategist Brazile has shown herself to be, if you were running for political office, would you hire Donna Brazile for your “strategist’?

98% Of Catholics Can’t Be Wrong – Or Can They?

The 98% of Catholics that NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations tout, and which the lame MSM goes along with without fact checking is in reference to those Catholics which support a woman’s right to obtain and use birth control – the kind that prevent a pregnancy from occurring, not any of the kinds that kill the baby after conception.  Most Americans, and probably at least equal to the Catholic percentage of 98%. agree that women ought to have the right to use birth control.  However, if you want it, you ought to pay for it yourself.

What will never happen is a majority of Catholics, and certainly one as large as 98%, supporting the Obama Administration’s push to force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, contraception and abortion to its patients against their moral and religious convictions.  This is very much a war, and one of Obama’s making.  He had help, of course, from the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other radical feminist women’s groups.  But a war, nonetheless, and one that must be fought to whatever end.

Obama has gone too far this time, in order to appease his block of extremist left-wing supporters.  A heavy gamble, as most Americans are more pro-life than pro-abortion, and more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal.  But Obama has the court system in his pocket, until Republicans can win more victories and oust any and all judicial activists who would seek to undermine the American Constitution.

Catholics are already gearing up for a fight, a viscous uphill battle all the way to the Supreme Court.  The stakes are huge.  If Obama wins, and Catholic hospitals are forced to provide services they find morally objectionable, they will no longer be protected under the first amendment and government can both disrespect an establishment of religion and make laws which impede the free exercise of religion.  Something which has never happened in our country.  If a Catholic hospital is forced to do what it considers evil, it may very well shut down altogether.  Then where will people go?

All this nonsense in response to what is essentially a minority of women in America who demand not only the right to abortion and to contraception, but demand the taxpayer fund and pay for it, and the government sanction it, and force hospitals to go along with it or else.

Indeed, there will be a war the likes of which hasn’t been seen since 1860.  Long have there been those Americans who have felt abortion would be America’s next great Civil War.  If Obama. and Planned Parenthood, have their way, there may very well be some type of revolt or rebellion in this country.  Does Obama, do Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the MSM really think conservatives, religious or otherwise, are just going to bow down and accept this type of drastic government intervention and intrusion?  There is that “final straw” thing to think about and that “enough is enough” concept.

If you thought the Occupy Wall Street crowd was bad – and they were – you ain’t seen nothing yet.  If you thought a few, insignificant, miniscule group of ignorant, uneducated, unintellectual mama’s boys and girls could cause trouble – wait until you get a load of us.  We’re here, we’re sincere, and we’re not gonna take it anymore.  You can only push us so far.  We won’t stand by idly and watch our Constitutional rights be stripped from us without a fight.  Did you think we would?

Planned Parenthood fights for the right of all women to kill their unborn children.  We fight for the rights of those unborn children, and the rights of Americans not to be placed in a moral dilemma which forces them either to commit an act of evil, against their will, or stop caring for all the people in their community altogether.

Of course there will be some sort of clash.  Something, and someone, has to give.  Did anyone, in 1860, expect to see America torn apart as it was?  Abortion is one of those issues that can tear apart those seams once again.  Is giving into Obama and Planned Parenthood really worth tearing apart those seams?  Is caving into the radical feminist and pro-abortion agenda worth tearing America apart, again?  What would such a war even look like?

For now, all that is neither here or there.  The first thing to happen would be either Catholic hospitals shutting their doors, or becoming completely private, relying on donations and charitable contributions.  How does that help the surrounding community?  If these hospitals do shut down, and people are turned away, denied services, refused entrance, etc., it will be because of Barack Obama and his inability to show the least amount of courage and common sense.  How many people will suffer needlessly because Planned Parenthood goes around acting like a spoiled little brat, always wanting more, more, more.

What is it worth to you, to have the right to kill your unborn child?  What is it worth to us, who oppose abortion, to ensure this practice is once again outlawed?  If women want birth control and contraception, and to have sex with as little fear of becoming pregnant as possible, they can pay for it themselves.  Leave the Catholic and religious hospitals out of it.  Money doesn’t grow on trees, neither do taxpayers.

Black Woman Murders White Pro-Lifers, Planned Parenthood Applauds, MSM Ignores

Back in 2005 a black woman, donning a “superhero” costume and calling herself Dionysus, made it her mission to stop cold “evil” pro-life protesters and advocates who were openly dissuading people, including teenagers, from engaging in dangerous and irresponsible sex, and trying to convince them to remain abstinent.  One white pro-life advocate, speaking to a group of teenagers, sharing such information about abstinence, was soon interrupted by this woman, whom she brutally murdered by drowning him.  She struck again outside an abortion clinic where a group of pro-life protesters had gathered with signs.  Using her “superpower” strength she murdered them by act of suffocation.  Not only was this condoned by Planned Parenthood, but every murder this black woman committed was commissioned, orchestrated and paid for, by Planned Parenthood.

You might be wondering why you haven’t heard of this.  Perhaps it is a result of Planned Parenthood’s immense influence within the MSM they were able to keep it quite for so long.  Perhaps because it was black on white crime, and that never really gets the same attention as white on black crime does.  Perhaps because what happens to pro-life advocates at the hands of pro-abortion advocates is mostly irrelevant and ignored anyway.  Or – perhaps it is because all of this, the black woman/”superhero”, the white protesters, the murders were all part of a silly, childish and ridiculously put together cartoon created by Planned Parenthood as pro-abortion propaganda, primarily for young teenagers to view.

Yes, this is what passes for “education” and “information” from Planned Parenthood’s lips to your children’s ears.  Pro-life is “evil” while pro-abortion is “angelic”.  “Safe is sexy”, the cartoon says, which is drawn in a retro 1970’s style.  No longer available for viewing on the Planned Parenthood site, it can still be viewed on YouTube and probably elsewhere around the internet.  A pro-abortion black woman cartoon character, a “superhero for choice”, telling children, young teenagers, sex is alright because there are many ways they can stay “protected” while doing it.  A black woman cartoon character calling pro-life advocates “ugly”, conservatism “the stench of misinformation” and Jerry Falwell a “shmuck”.

The black woman cartoon character goes to Washington where an “evil” white politician set in his “grandiose” ways is boiling up double trouble in the form of a stew made from the Constitution and other literature, laws and values Planned Parenthood and liberals so despise and loathe.  Having thrown him into his own stew he comes out cleansed and naked, and with a new pro-choice, pro-abortion attitude.  And, for some reason, an apple in his mouth.  Wouldn’t it be more interesting if Planned Parenthood had included a naked white, or even black, woman on a platter with an apple in her mouth?

The black woman cartoon character then visits Ethiopia where she is thrilled to learned Planned Parenthood has set up shop, helping the natives there prevent, and end, unwanted pregnancies.  She seems less concerned, however, that they are still living in straw huts.  Well, after-all, even Barack Obama’s uncle is still living in one of those.

Somehow, Planned Parenthood, back in 2005, thought this would a positive, uplifting and informative cartoon to dispense to the youngsters it hoped and intended would watch it.  Somehow, Planned Parenthood, back in 2005, thought black women would find it, and themselves, empowered and inspired by having for a “superhero for choice” as their role model another cartoon-ishly drawn black woman.  There might be some truth to this.  Blacks who identify themselves as liberal, certainly have no respect for any black man or woman who is a pro-life conservative.  No, the more a black, such as this black woman cartoon character, supports and advocates the killing of unborn children, and calls that a lifestyle “choice” the more comfortable are liberal blacks.

So, is this cartoon of a black woman cartoon character really nothing more than a racist or stereotypical caricature, a denigrating and degrading depiction of blacks in general?  Because to Planned Parenthood, it’s not.

Is Komen The Only One That Can Provide Cancer Screening Or Any Type Of Health Care?

Komen has caved, at least temporarily.  In its statement, Komen has said that it will continue to fund Planned Parenthood with the current grants it was already providing the abortion business.  So, obviously, those of use who were head over heels when Komen first announced it would break ties with Planned Parenthood are left dazed and confused, and wondering just what happened.  Komen more than likely could not cope, did not expect, the negative backlash, thus it bowed to the political pressure and pressure by Planned Parenthood, the MSM and the minions of pro-abortion supporters around the country.

But, ladies and gentlemen – is Komen “it” when it comes to breast cancer screenings or women’s health in general?

Whether or not it is, is not as relevant as the fact that it ought not be.  Here, in this debacle, this tangled mess of utter confusion, we have a golden and perfect opportunity to do something worthwhile to amend a long-standing problem that has plagued America since it founding.  Namely, health care, and finding unique and innovative ways to provide quality health care without people having to worry the cost will be so enormous, so overly expensive that they simply must turn it down because they either go and get screened or they eat.  This should never be an either or in America, and it is one of the reasons why liberals have looked to government, and government mandates, to force universal healthcare down our throats.

For conservatives, the best way to counter this is to beat them at their own game.  Every single community in America ought to have a place for women to go (and for men as well) where they can receive quality health care – and in particular the types of preventative screenings to find and detect cancer as early as possible – and quality health care information and proper education for the kinds of issues that most affect them.

Liberals may support this as well.  The difference is that they, liberals, would support the government funding these clinics with tax payer dollars, providing health care we, conservatives, may find appalling and distributing, such as contraception, condoms and pregnancy ending pills and literature.  Planned Parenthood already does this, a portion of which is derived from our taxes.  From the liberal perspective, they want government involved because it provides this endless supply of money – our money.  Government also has enormous power to regulate and mandate.  Why do we need all this clutter and red tape in a facility that is intended to help people live their lives healthier and longer?

If Komen thinks the pressure it is feeling now, political and otherwise, is too intense, we conservatives, and pro-life supporters, ought to show Komen what real pressure feels like.  We can only do that by competing.  And we can only do that by finding or creating new organizations which women (and men) can turn to for health care education and screenings.  Komen can’t be the only ones out there providing breast cancer screenings.  But if it is – then it will have no reason to bow to our pressure from the pro-life, conservative side.

Only when more and more conservative based health care clinics open up across America, providing quality health care, health care information and education literature and classes; safe havens for women and girls to go who have become pregnant (or who want to remain celibate and virgin until married and need extra moral support) and desperately want someone to turn to besides an abortion clinic; places where they can go and receive quality cancer screening, breast and all other types, then will we see Planned Parenthood’s pressure diminish.

Competition works!

If Komen can’t go it alone – and it shouldn’t have to – will we have the courage to rise up and come to the aid of Komen, to deflect some of the “pressure” Planned Parenthood and its thugs in the MSM and Washington are applying?  Will we have the courage to have some of that Planned Parenthood pressure applied to us?  Or will also “cave” to that pressure?

Planned Parenthood’s Donations Are Up, So Why Are They Crying?

In the wake of the brave and courageous decision by Komen for the Cure to severe ties with Planned Parenthood, both organizations have seen their donations skyrocket.  This will wane and ebb within a short time and donations will fall back to normal levels.  However, what is transpiring now, what we are seeing, is everyone taking sides, either with Planned Parenthood’s message of more abortion, or with Komen and its message of life, and life saving screenings.

UPDATE:  It looks as though Komen was not as strong as presumed.  Obviously someone has gotten to it and its leaders and scared the hell out of them.  At this point, because of Komen’s vulnerability, it may do well to severe ties with them and donate our money to other women’s health institutions that don’t also provide abortions,

However, there still lies the vast and fundamental difference between these two organizations.  While both may provide breast cancer screening, only Komen does not engage in life ending procedures, i.e. abortion.

Already, one member of Komen has resigned because of Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned parenthood.

Dr. Kathy Plesser, a Manhattan radiologist on the medical advisory board of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s New York chapter, said she plans to resign from her position unless Komen reverses its decision to pull grant money from Planned Parenthood.

“I’m a physician and my interest is women’s health, and I am disturbed by Komen’s decision because I am a very strong advocate for serving under-served women,” Plesser told The Huffington Post. “Eliminating this funding will mean there’s no place for these women to go. Where are these women to go to have a mammography? Do they not deserve to have mammography?”

She raises a very provocative point.  Women obviously need somewhere they can go that is affordable but still provides quality services.  The pro-life side is not so vindictive that it does not understand this.  However, this would be a perfect opportunity for Dr. Plesser to perhaps form her own women’s health center.  In fact, this is a perfect time for many members of the medical community with the knowledge, experience, professional training and expertise to begin creating women’s health center’s all across America.  The pro-life side would welcome this, encourage it, and support it with donations – so long as no abortions were taking place and women and girls were being provided with real health care and health education.

Planned Parenthood has suffered some major defeats of late, and that will continue.  More and more Americans are identifying themselves as pro-life; many of whom have spent a life time as pro-abortion supporters.  It’s still an uphill battle we are facing, but we are not backing away.  We are the only voice the unborn have, we are they only ones who can fight for their lives.

Either life has value or it hasn’t.  Either that life is worth fighting for or it isn’t.  We must decide who we will side with.   The stakes are higher now, as President Obama has usurped his authority and mandated all hospitals, including Catholic ones, provide contraception and pregnancy ending pills to its patients, regardless of their moral or religious convictions.  It is clearly an unconstitutional decision, and it will be fought all the way to the Supreme Court.

With a victory seemingly in Planned Parenthood’s pocket, as well as all the new donations, one might think the abortion provider is sitting high and pretty.  But even Humpty Dumpty thought as much of himself, and we all know what happened to him.  The MSM, has already swooped in to shield Planned Parenthood from its inevitable fall.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell had some tough words for Susan G. Komen chief Nancy Brinker about the growing firestorm over Planned Parenthood.

“Let me just put out there first of all, I have been identified, an outspoken supporter and participant in the races over the years long before I, myself, ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer.” Mitchell announced that she was diagnosed with breast cancer in September 2011.

It is indeed a “growing firestorm”.  We, the pro-life side, have in our sights a real opportunity to end abortion.  Roe vs. Wade will be overturned.  It’s inevitable.  The 2012 election is key to making that happen.  If Obama wins reelection, then we will see many more years of abortions, and millions of unborn lives lost before we can stop it.  However, if Romney, or whoever the Republican Presidential contender is going up against Obama wins, it is possible Roe vs. Wade could be overturned within his first term.  The reason for this is lies in just one Supreme Court justice retiring or leaving the bench.

Should that happen the most likely candidate to leave would be Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  So, an Obama win puts another pro-abortion liberal on the bench, and years more of wrangling and fighting.  While a Romney/Republican win will see a pro-life conservative on the bench, giving it the five votes it needs to overturn roe vs. Wade.  And throw in Kenndy for good measure, who, as a swing vote, could vote in favor of overturning the nearly forty-year old law.

The fuse that Komen has lit it burning hot.  Let’s make certain nobody can throw cold water on it before it has a chance to reach its target.  2011 saw enormous gains in the fight against abortion.  2012 will see even more.  But if Obama wins reelection, all those victories may be squashed, and we might be back to the drawing board.

Komen took a stand.  What are you waiting for?

Komen For The Cure Adds Another Nail To Planned Parenthood’s Coffin

There is something ironic which is tied into abortion and breast cancer screening.  To detect and find a lump on a woman’s breast, an ultrasound is performed.  Planned Parenthood provides these tests, and uses the findings based on these ultrasounds to determine whether or not a lump exists, and if so, how advanced it is.  Yet, it, Planned Parenthood, is absolutely against using sonograms to show a pregnant woman contemplating abortion an image of the “thing” she is about to kill.  There really is no difference between an ultrasound and a sonogram – except one is used to prove whether or not cancer exists, whereas the other is used to prove whether or not human life exists.

It ought to be said that if Planned Parenthood was not under investigation for corruption, Komen For the Cure, which provides breast cancer screenings, probably would not have ended its grant funding to the abortion provider.  It could also be said that if Planned Parenthood was not so greedy, and more willing to turn people away who were either underage (too young to have an abortion without a parent’s consent) or who were, as minors, brought in for an abortion by the adult that had impregnated her, perhaps Planned Parenthood would not have found itself with one fewer ally in their pocket – a delightful mess for which Planned Parenthood has only itself to blame.

UPDATE:  Now, apparently a kind of war has been waged, at least a severe backlash against Komen for breaking ranks and dropping Planned Parenthood.  Now more than ever those of us who are pro-life must stand up against this evil that is abortion, and the evil doers – Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, all the usual pro-abortion suspects who will be ripping pro-lifer advocates apart with the help of the MSM.  It is no different than what Gov. Scott Walker is going through in Wisconsin with the unions trying to recall him.  Komen did a courage thing and we need to provide as much support to Komen as we can.  Planned Parenthood will fall, but not unless we are there, standing in solidarity, to ensure it does.  There is still the chance Komen could cave if Planned Parenthood applies enough pressure.  Let’s make sure whatever pressure they do apply, we double, triple our own pressure.

Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, writing in the Arianna Nation is deeply troubled over what she sees as “political pressure” from pro-life groups having caused Komen to drop Planned Parenthood.  There is, of course, some truth to this.  On the other hand, Komen has a policy of not providing grant money to organization which are under investigation.

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said “the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.

However, Richards ascertain that the decision by Komen “comes as a blow to women across America” is overstated.  Komen will grow stronger now, and now that it has removed this most voracious and cunning cancer from itself.  Komen, one might say, is in remission.  But the cancer could return to Komen and plague it even more severely than it did previously.  Which is why pro-life supporters need to show their full support for Komen as they never have before.  The more of us that align with Komen, the less influenced Komen will be by Planned Parenthood and the harder it will be for Planned Parenthood to seduce Komen once again.

It’s always been troubling, donating to a worthy organization, such as Komen, which is (or was, but may yet be again in time) not only partnered with unworthy organizations, like Planned Parenthood, but provides them with grant money.  When one donates to an organization it is with the best intentions, and hope that money – their money – will be used properly.  It is unsettling to think that money – their money – in part, may find its way to another organization that does not have our support.

Without the stigma of grant funding to “baby killers” Komen will gain new support, new contributors and new allies – all of whom will contribute new monies, perhaps even more abundantly now, which, in turn, will help thousands more women receive breast cancer screening and save many more lives.  The women who once relied on Planned Parenthood don’t need to do that anymore, nor do they need to be afraid they will be left out in the cold, or abandoned.  Komen will see its funding increase, as pro-life supporters and organizations fill the empty void left by Planned Parenthood.  Komen will be able to expand its operations and set up additional facilities throughout America.

Of course, if Planned Parenthood was to stop performing abortions altogether; if Planned Parenthood was to end its brutal assault on teenage girls by providing them with misinformation about “safe-sex” and replace it with abstinence until married literature and education, that might go a long way in turning this deeply disturbed organization around.

Until that happens, we are better off donating our money to organizations that actually help save lives, not contribute to the deaths of millions of them.

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?

More Feminist Hysteria Over “Plan B” Restrictions

Feminists, and now Cecile Richards, just can’t stop their juvenile whining.  The sting of betrayal they have felt, after having been denied (perhaps only temporarily) from enacting a most dangerous and immoral initiative against young girls still throbs painfully and incessantly.  Their campaign to corrupt as many young girls into their vulgar feminist world of sexual depravity has, for now, been thwarted by the Obama Administration’s, and Kathleen Sebelius’ overruling which would have allowed any girl, at any “reproductive” age the legal ability to purchase the Morning After Pill.  That includes ten year old girls!

She bemoans that:

In a country where nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned, effective birth control isn’t just a convenience — it’s an urgent health need that too many women are still unable to meet.

Isn’t it ironic that in a country where young boys and girls are being educated not to abstain from sex, but rather how to engage in sex and what types of sex to engage in, such a high percentage of “unwanted pregnancies” are the result?  Someone like Cecile would absolutely oppose abstinence only education.  Perverts like Cecile are the reason and the cause for why so many young girls find themselves in “an urgent health need”.  In other words, if more young girls, and boys, were taught to respect one another, and each others virginity; that virginity itself is not an embarrassing crutch, a debilitating bane; that there is character and strength in remaining virgin – there would be far fewer “unwanted pregnancies” and far less need for emergency contraception – “urgent health needs” as Cecile puts it.

Young girls are engaging in sex precisely because of the despicable actions of women like Cecile Richards who, “prostituting” themselves for a “pimp” like Planned Parenthood, nowhere advocates abstinence only, and abstinence until married.  To her, to Planned Parenthood, to all lunatic feminists, it’s all about ensuring girls, at whatever age they feel comfortable having sex, “whenever they are ready”, as she puts it, have a means in which to end an unwanted pregnancy, should that be result.

Writes Cecile:

The reality is that some teens become sexually active before they’re old enough to buy Plan B without a prescription and 750,000 teens become pregnant every year. That means we should do all we can to keep teens from being parents before they are ready.

The “reality” is that teens are becoming sexually active because they are taught in public schools all over America that it is acceptable for them to engage in sex.  Teachers, adults, betraying their authority, the trust parents instill in them to properly educate their children.  Cecile Richards is among the betrayers and cowards.  To a lowlife feminist like her, doing “all we can do” does not mean teaching young girls to keep their damn clothes on and conducting themselves with moral restraint and integrity.  “All we can do” means to miscreants and vipers like Cecile is filling a young girl’s head with “sexual liberation” and “her body, her choice” ideology; to not worry about the “consequences” because Planned Parenthood can make those consequences disappear.

She states that:

Planned Parenthood strongly supports parents in their efforts to protect their teens’ sexual health, and we work with teens to encourage responsible decisions and help them delay sex until they are ready for it.

Planned Parenthood works to protect its own cash flow and bottom line.  Planned Parenthood works to protect its abortion business.  Planned Parenthood does not work to provide teens with “responsible decisions”, nor does Planned Parenthood work to “help them delay sex until they are ready“.  And if they did isn’t that in of itself dangerous?  Is it Planned Parenthood’s right to undermine a parent’s authority where their own children are concerned?  Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood certainly think so.  “When they are ready” could mean at age sixteen or under.  Planned Parenthood, and Cecile Richards, are intentionally deceiving young girls, leading them down a twisted road in sexual depravity, leading them away from the loving embrace of their own parents and into the cold, dead, unfeeling arms of feminism.

This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives with regards to teen sexuality – we, conservatives, strongly feel all teens ought to delay sex not until “they are ready”, but rather until after they are married.  Liberals seem to be all too comfortable with teens (as long as they are not their children) engaging in sex whenever they feel “ready”.

Pooh-poohs Cecile:

Unfortunately, this hysteria is a smokescreen that has obscured the real issue: women need better access to this safe, effective and vitally important medication.

On the contrary, it is dangerous, diabolical feminists like Cecile that have obscured reality with a liberal smokescreen.  Women need better access to positive role models and influences, and a proper education that instills the moral value of abstinence before marriage.  Women, and young girls, need to feel strong in their virginity, not ashamed of it.  Women, and young girls, need to band together in solidarity against Cecile’s, Planned Parenthood’s, liberalism’s and all of feminism’s push to rape them of their innocence and purity, and then to leech off of their mistakes for their own lecherous profit.

Cecile continues with:

Unfortunately, the opponents of birth control of all types have painted a picture of 11- and 12-year-old girls rushing to the local drugstore to snap up emergency contraception. How crazy is that?

Actually, it is Cecile, and her repulsive feminist ilk, that have more than “painted a picture” of this happening.  They are the ones who are bemoaning girls this young now cannot have access to over the counter contraception.  We, conservatives – the people who respect life and promote abstinence until marriage – rejoice over the ruling that protects young girls from being sucked into Cecile’s hellish vision of America for young girls.  Obviously Cecile is comfortable with ten and eleven year old girls engaging in sex, otherwise she would be just as horrified and deeply alarmed over any law allowing a girl of that age to buy contraception without her parents knowledge or consent.  How “crazy is that”?

“Crazy” Cecile concludes with:

Despite all the political efforts to restrict it, access to emergency contraception has expanded steadily in recent years. But we can’t afford to accept the status quo when women’s health is at stake.

It is Cecile who is so perfectly willing to “risk the health” of young girls, and gladly so, all in the name of feminism and sexual liberation, and probably to steer a little “business” over to Planned Parenthood.  America ought to reject Cecile’s evil version of the “status quo” with regards to instilling sexual irresponsibility in young girls.  We definitely “cannot afford to accept” her disgusting and vile enlightenment, her ongoing effort to corrupt young girls into thinking sex “when they are ready” is the American norm.

Want to be sexually liberated?  Get married first.  Then have all the “liberating” sex you want.

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 4 – And Feminists Acting Stupidly

Ten year old girls have been denied access to over the counter drugs by the Obama Administration and Planned Parenthood feels both betrayed and outraged.  Sharing in this outrage is feminist Michelle Goldberg, who writes in The Daily Beast the decision to prevent little girls (who should not be thinking about, let alone having, sex in the first place) from purchasing a pregnancy ending drug was “politically driven”.

Politics getting in the way of ten year old girls engaging in sex, then “destroying any evidence” before mommy and daddy find out?

Michelle writes:

This controversy was constantly cited in feminist indictments of the previous president. It was usually mentioned in critiques of Bush’s ideological, anti-empirical approach to science. That’s why women’s-health advocates and other progressives were so shocked yesterday when the Obama administration overruled an FDA recommendation to expand over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step, a type of morning-after pill.

How can revoking insanity be an “anti-empirical approach to science”?  There is, or course, no “controversy”.  Only in the excrement filled minds of Planned Parenthood and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg.  “Feminist indictments” and “critiques” are absolutely irrelevant in the real world, and certainly ought not hold any bearing, any sway, in science and rational thought, or in congress and its role, its ability to make and pass laws.

There is something deeper, more disturbing and diabolical going on than that.  Even by 2011 logic, standards and common sense the very idea we as a civilized society would accept something that is so damaging, so corrupting to anyone, women, teens and especially little girls goes beyond any level of straight forward comprehension.

It is absurdity that we would behave and react with dignified reserve, and with a smile on our face, should we happen to witness a teenage girl, or even a girl as young as ten, walk up to a store counter, plunk down the appropriate fee and declare, “Now may I have that drug which makes my pregnancy go away?”

Honestly, what does Planned Parenthood and Michelle Goldberg take us for?  What does any feminist acting stupidly, endangering the lives of young girls, tampering with their “fragile innocence” take us for?

As parents, and as a society, we have a compelling necessity to instill responsibility in our children.  Although teenagers ought not be engaging in sex to begin with, we know it occurs.  Providing to our young easily accessible drugs (i.e., a pill which provides an easy way out) does not mold character, does not shape a child’s mind or prepare them for adulthood, does not allow them to properly grow into strong, independent adults.  We know why Planned Parenthood supports corrupting young girls.  Why does Michelle Goldberg defend their despicable actions?

The decision to deny girls under the age of 17 the drug nicknamed “The Morning after pill” was in part driven by politics.  Obama, congress, and even radical pro-abortion feminist Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, have been feeling the heat from Catholic Bishops and other pro-life groups who have mounted and spearheaded a hugely successful campaign to prevent congress from forcing hospitals and medical staff into providing abortions and abortion inducing drugs against their religious and moral convictions.

In other words – without this pressure, without feeling politically threatened, Sebelius and Obama would have endorsed a law making it legal for girls as young as ten to slink into any store and purchase an over the counter drug, the Morning After Pill, quietly, anonymously, unknowingly, ingest the concoction to end their pregnancy privately, without mom and dad ever knowing.  Planned Parenthood supports – demands – the Morning After Pill be available over the counter to any girl, regardless of age.

Our daughters deserve better than the crap being espoused, promoted and sold by Planned Parenthood and defended by feminists acting stupidly, like Michelle Goldberg.  Our daughters deserve to be raised properly, influenced rightly, taught morally by parents and adult educators who possess incredible strength and fortitude when it comes to ensuring the information provided and disseminated, and put into the hands of young, impressionable girls will help them grow into wise, stable adults – not harm or stunt their intellectuality or corrupt their minds, or turn them into quivering, mush-filled liberal feminists – like Michelle Goldberg.

There is no rationale for even remotely considering a law legalizing any drug to any minor, certainly without their parents knowledge and consent.  Yet, while feminists like Michelle Goldberg would denounce and condemn the idea of young girls working, learning responsibility, preparing for adulthood and earning some extra income – even with their parents knowledge and consent – these same radical feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, would be, and are, flabbergasted when society attempts to step in-between Planned Parenthood’s damnable scheme to infiltrate a parent’s right to raise their own children.

Planned Parenthood, and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, are perfectly comfortable with young girls engaging in sex, apparently even as young as ten.  It’s part of their whole “sexual liberation” ideology which has brainwashed young girls and women into becoming feminists, who in turn brainwash the next generation of young girls into becoming feminists, and so forth and so on.

Pregnancy often results during “sexual liberation”.  Planned Parenthood and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg, vehemently reject and oppose parental rights.  They support, and are committed to passing, laws which would otherwise allow young girls to be, and to remain, irresponsible; laws that would keep parents from ever knowing their daughters had engaged in sex, had ingested drugs, however “safe”, but without their parents knowledge or consent, and stopped pregnancy from occurring.

Yes, Sebelius and Obama “did the right thing”, contrary to the express wishes of Planned Parenthood, and feminists, like Michelle Goldberg.  But do we give them a pass?  Is credit due to them?  Did Sebelius overrule a law allowing girls even as young as ten year old the right to obtain pregnancy ending drugs without their parents involvement, and did Obama support her overruling, because they both saw the real harm and injury posed to young girls, to society, in passing such a law?  Or did they overrule the law because, as Michelle puts it, they were “politically driven”?

We know Planned Parenthood and Michelle Goldberg are without character.  We don’t have to accept their drivel.  However, can we accept the drivel of a United States President who is also without character, without morals, without question lacking in real leadership?  If this decision made by Sebelius, and supported by Obama, was only “politically driven”, rather than driven by morality, rationality, and a real respect for young women and girls – what does that decision say about their character?

The Unborn Child – Just A “Heartbeat” Away From Planned Parenthood Killing It

Can you still have a heartbeat, if you don’t have a heart?  If a fetus has a heartbeat, is it alive?  If a fetus has a heartbeat, would abortion rights activists concede it is alive?   Would Planned Parenthood?  Would the United States Supreme court?

That is what some Ohio Republican lawmakers are hoping to find out.  They want to introduce a “Fetal Heartbeat” bill that, if passed, would legally protect a fetus from being aborted once a heartbeat is detected.  This can be as early as 25 days after conception.  The ACLU has already said it would challenge the law, almost certainly leading to a very contentious fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Consider that even hospital patients are not labeled as “dead” as long as they have a heart murmur, something stirring, some type of rhythmic beat, however erratic or irregular; any “blip” flashing across the monitor, until that “blip” ceases to move.  The bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, – a Republican – has also compared a hospital’s monitoring of its patients heartbeats for a pulse and determined that:

Why, then, should we ignore this critical indicator of life when it comes to the very young?”

Opposition to the bill is already mounting.  State Sen. Shirley Smith – a Democrat – has called the bill:

Another attack on individual rights.”

It is an interesting choice of words, she uses.  If, once a fetus develops a heartbeat, it therefore is alive, and hence a living human being, does that not make the fetus itself an “individual”?  Would not the act of abortion then be an “attack on individual rights”?  And – why is it wrong to “attack” a right that allows women to indiscriminately kill their unborn children, knowing that unborn child is a living, feeling human being and an “individual”?

State Sen. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, said that while she is against abortions, she had concerns about having abortion providers determine whether a heartbeat can be heard.

There is some level of common sense here that lawmakers ought to work out.  After-all, leaving it to abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, to detect a heartbeat in a fetus, and then relay that information to the woman, seems somewhat futile.  It’s like asking a car salesman to tell you the “truth” about the car he is showing you.  In other words, if abortionists detected a heartbeat, would they have enough of a conscience to tell the woman her fetus is alive and the abortion cannot be carried through?

We already know how deceptive Planned Parenthood is when it comes to disseminating information about abortion to women.  We already know Planned Parenthood supports abortion for any reason, at any time during the pregnancy.  We already know that Planned Parenthood rejects the notion that a fetus is a living, feeling human being.  We already know that Planned Parenthood denies life begins at conception, or at any time during pregnancy.  We already know that Planned Parenthood opposes showing women who are considering abortion sonograms, images of their fetus, before they actually have the abortion performed.  We know that Planned Parenthood supports all types of abortions including partial birth abortions.  We know that Planned Parenthood is For Profit, and makes a “killing” from the killing of unborn children.

Knowing all this about Planned Parenthood, would they so readily give all that up?  Can they really be trusted to “do the right thing” and tell women their fetus has a heartbeat, and is therefore a living, feeling, human being – an individual?

It is always frustrating having to find new ways in which to outwit Planned Parenthood and abortion rights activists.  How much more proof do they need to see that a fetus is indeed alive?  And if they still don’t care about the proof, what is it they are really after?  Is it all about the money?  Is is all about ensuring working women don’t become “stay at home moms”?  Is Planned Parenthood that cold, that unfeeling, that unconscionable, that inhuman?  Is Planned Parenthood everything they contend a fetus is?

When the Supreme Court, back in 1973, decided Roe vs.  Wade, it was on the basis that, at the time, there was no actual proof that life began at conception.  Back then no proof of life could be offered as evidence for why a fetus deserved protection.  We have that proof now.  We’ve had that proof for a long time.  We know that life begins at conception.  We know the heartbeat develops around 25 days after conception.  We know, through sonograms and other means, the fetus is developing from day one.

We also know that no amount of proof will ever convince Planned Parenthood to stop the killing.  They contend a “right to privacy” when it comes to killing an unborn child.  Couldn’t a rapist then contend the same “right to privacy” when they rape a woman behind an alley, or the backseat of their own car?  How about a gang member’s or a mobster’s “right to privacy” when they kill a rival?  Why do we accept and uphold the myth of “right to privacy” when it comes to women killing their unborn children?

What is ultimately going to be the deciding factor is not so much a change in fetal development that produces a heartbeat.  Ohio can pass their “Fetal Heartbeat” bill.  But until there a change in attitude among abortion rights activists, helping them develop a conscience that produces a heart, the unborn will still be in danger of being killed.

If not a fetal heartbeat, what will it take to change the hearts and minds of abortion rights supporters?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: