The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “Right To LIfe”

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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”?

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?

Martha Plimpton Is Wrong About Rick Santorum And Abortion

Martha Plimpton (Think, The Goonies) has publicly criticized Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on his view regarding abortion.  Plimpton, who is pro-abortion, and like all abortion advocates hostile to any intervention into a woman’s right to “privacy”, has challenged Santorum’s perceived intolerance to what she feels is a matter best left between a woman and her doctor.  But as we know, as we ought to know, abortion is not so simply described as the “private medical decision” Plimpton opines.  Abortion is the termination (killing) of a live fetus, which is a human being.  Why on Earth do we want to relegate the killing of unborn human beings to the “privacy” of an abortion clinic room?

There are some “medical decisions” and procedures that are so inhumane, so inhuman, we have a right to be concerned they are taking place in “privacy” (secret) throughout America, and we have an urgent need to ensure these practices are made, and remain, illegal.  What is a human being to Martha Plimpton?  What is the value of being a human being to her?  Why does she not see that an unborn child is a human being?  Hasn’t she seen the sonograms?

Writes Plimpton:

“Mr. Santorum is the one who feels that the private medical decisions made between women and their families and doctors are public property and must be regulated and scrutinized by the government.”

When it comes to killing an unborn child, absolutely our government must “scrutinize” and “regulate”.  Plimpton, also a liberal, would demand our government “scrutinize” and “regulate” everything else in our lives, from the food we eat, to the gas we buy, the cars, clothes, homes, light bulbs, toilet paper and on and on.  But how dare the government take the pro-life position on the killing of an unborn child.

“The policies Mr. Santorum advocates would lead to the investigation and scrutiny of women’s medical decisions about their pregnancies. He seeks to criminalize abortion and to criminally charge doctors for performing them.”

The “policies” which Santorum “advocates” would prevent the unnecessary killings of millions of unborn children.  That’s rather impressive.  It cannot be said enough that the more we as a society allow, accept, condone, or are otherwise apathetic to, policies which undermine a respect for life, the more we degenerate into an animalistic society devoid and bankrupt of any values.

We have seen how societies of people without any values, without any concern for anyone or anything, such as the OWS protesters, live their hunter-gatherer lives, how they invade the sanctity of private space and land, squat on it and claim it as their own; a total disregard for the people who regularly use this space for business and pleasure, and how they leave an area after they are through slashing and burning it.  Someone can challenge it, but every last one of these protesters it can be certain is pro-abortion.  They have no respect for the people living, and making a living, in and around the areas they commandeered for their protests, why would they have any respect for, or put any value on, the lives of the unborn.  And – it was pro-abortion liberals who supported them throughout.  Conservatives, overwhelmingly pro-life, remained staunchly opposed to their shenanigans.

The point being – this is what America is headed for the more we devalue human life.  Societies without morals and standards, as represented by the OWS protesters, which do not emphasize a respect for human life, will devolve into the same deplorable mannerisms as the OWS protesters, begging for food, using any open space available to urinate and defecate and dump their trash.

Plimpton continues:

“How much more invasive can one get? How much bigger does the government need to be to be a presence in the examination room of every pregnant woman in the country?”

She says this, and yet is there any doubt she supports Obamacare, which is big government; which is invasive; which is a “presence in the examination room” of not just “every pregnant woman”, but everyone in the country, man, woman and child.

“If Mr. Santorum seeks to police women’s reproductive lives, he must expect to be subject to the same irrational, intrusive, embarrassing and degrading inquisition he intends to force on the rest of America.”

There is a gross misconception that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman.  That being pro-life stems from a sinister desire to control women’s lives, to keep them “barefoot and pregnant”.  But this is pro-abortion propaganda.  Women ought to be grateful, not resentful, for the pro-life movement.  Women ought to celebrate the pro-life movement, not condemn it.  Women ought to realize that to be pro-life is to be pro-woman, not the opposite.  It is NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood which have no respect for women.  It is pro-abortion organizations like them who see pregnant women not as mothers to be but as cash cows.

Being pro-life means we have a deep and profound respect for human life, including the untold millions of female children slaughtered in the womb every year around the world, intentionally, and because they are female.  The pro-life movement opposes abortion as a means of sex selection.  The pro-abortion movement embraces it.  Which side, then, is really on the pro-woman side?  That the pro-life movement would seek to prevent a woman from having an abortion in no way devalues the life and worth of the woman.  We place a high value on human life; we do everything we can to preserve, to save, to prolong life, from the moment of conception through the end of life and even into death and by respecting the right of the dead to rest in peace.  The same people who are pro-abortion also support harvesting human organs and other body parts, and using the dead for scientific research without their prior written consent or authorization.

Plimpton’s tirade against Rick Santorum is woeful indeed.  Would Plimpton support federal law mandating all hospitals and all medical staff perform abortions against their religious or moral convictions?  Is that not invasion of “privacy” also?  Is that not “big government” being a “presence” in every hospital in America?

Or is government only “big” and “invasive” in her eyes when it seeks to stop the killing of unborn children, but not when it seeks to control any other aspect of our lives, including those guaranteed under the Constitution?

Planned Terrorism Strikes New York City On Thanksgiving

Live in New York City?  Perhaps you were in town, visiting relatives, or just happened to be one of the unfortunates out and about on Thanksgiving, picking up last minute items for the celebration, and attacked in broad daylight by what can only be described as a viscous and vindictive act of planned terrorism by one of the most dangerous organized terror groups operating in America today, which, apparently had nothing better to do on Thanksgiving than to terrorize the citizens of New York City?  If you were no where near this terror group – be thankful!

Even on Thanksgiving, Planned Parenthood terrorists were milking every opportunity in their arsenal, making sure everyone knew about their holiday abortion tips for dealing correctly with pro-life (“extremists”) activists.  Eight golden tips which Planned Parenthood terrorists of New York say will help anyone seeking an abortion, or protesting for abortion rights overcome the “hostility” which accompanies pro-life activists when they encircle abortion clinics and – on Thanksgiving, and other holidays that bring long distance relatives together – around the dinner table.

Planned Parenthood terrorists are overwrought, worried as hell, that as the Thanksgiving holiday brings family together from all over the country, (and it is true even among close family members opinions vary) somewhere the topic of abortion is going to come up.  Perhaps in between tossing the old football around or while watching the Lion/Packers game – during the commercials, at any rate.  Or – as if somewhere in the middle of stuffing our mouths with turkey, mashed potatoes and all the trimming we associate with this celebrated day, that after we swallow, and in between our next “forkful” we will find the time, or the interest, to discuss abortion.  Maybe it will happen when everyone is standing around, digesting, waiting for the pie to be brought out.

It might make for an interesting National Lampoon’s Griswold’s Thanksgiving movie, but who talks politics on Thanksgiving, and since when has talking “abortion” been on anyone’s Thanksgiving tradition list?  And yet, Planned Parenthood terrorists of New York want everyone to be “thankful” abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is still legal and they are using the Thanksgiving holiday to reinforce this American “value”.  It makes one wonder what they have wrapped up for Christmas.  Well, alright then.  Although most families do not reserve Thanksgiving for debating anything other than whether the turkey is done, now that Thanksgiving is over – Bring it on!

Among some of their “tips” for dealing with the relatives is their number two “Remember the Big Picture”:

Debating when life begins or whether or not abortion is federally funded may get you nowhere. Instead focus on your shared values and the big picture—for instance, talk about how you believe everyone should be able to afford to go to the doctor, or how the decision about when and whether to become a parent is a personal one. You never know, you just may find yourself actually agreeing with your relatives.

Around the living, or family, room, any pre-dinner “debates” will ultimately revolve around who will win the football game, who should win the football game and what that means for the division standings.  Perhaps whether or not to put out more chips or to just make the company wait until dinner.  In other words, most people are distracted with other things than abortion on Thanksgiving.

Life does begin at conception.  That is a scientific fact.  And we all want more “affordable healthcare” in America.  Most of us don’t support Obamacare, Universal, or Single Payer Healthcare, or whatever other euphemisms are being used to describe socialized medicine.  Whether we do or not, is this what we travel hundreds, thousands of miles, to be reunited with family, do after the hugging and hand shaking is over?

Tort reform, capping lawsuit wins at no more than $250,000, lifting regulations, cutting taxes on the investment of, and profit from, new tools and techniques to help doctors and hospitals cure disease and save lives are just some of the ways that will bring down the cost of healthcare in America and make it more affordable for everyone.

Another terror tip from Planned Parenthood is number 4 – “Create A Space For the Listener”:

Focus on the distinction between your personal beliefs, and what should or shouldn’t be imposed on others. For example, “I might not personally choose to get an abortion, but I could never decide for another woman whether or not she was ready to become a parent.”

In other words, in the context of abortion, and what abortion is, what the quote is actually saying in layman’s terms is, “I might not want to kill my own unborn child, but that doesn’t mean I should oppose your right to kill your unborn child.”

For those of us who are pro-life, and therefore value human life, we are not so cavalier.  Whether or not a woman or girl who becomes pregnant wants to be a parent is not the issue.  If she is not ready, there are places she can go to give up her child after it is born so that she does not have to deal with the “burden” of being a parent.  That she does not want, or cannot commit to, parenthood is no excuse, no justification for killing the human life inside of her.

Planned Parenthood terror tip Number 6, “It’s All In How You Frame It”, and they give examples such as:

A woman may have an abortion for any number of reasons. Some of these reasons may not seem right to us, but even if we disagree, it is better that each person be able to make her own decision.

It is indeed tragic that women have abortions for “any number of reasons”, virtually none of which have anything to do with saving her life from an irreversible complication in the pregnancy.  It is absolutely never better “that each person be able to make their own decision” if that “decision” involves killing an unborn child.  But Planned Parenthood rejects the fact that an unborn child is a child.  Right now, they have the law on their side to protect that faulty position.

We can try to imagine the heartbreak of a family when they get the news that a test has shown there is something wrong with their baby.

Like in China, when the unborn child turns out be a girl.  What is so “wrong with their baby” that killing it becomes more humane than delivering it and working to provide as comfortable a life as is allowed by current technology, the advancement of which is rapidly evolving.  In other words, a child born “with something wrong with it” will have a better chance today at survival, and long, happy, healthy life, than it would have one hundred years ago.  And because new treatments and solutions for the “wrongs” of fetal development are always being upgraded, the chances for survival will become even greater tomorrow.  Why would we deny these unborn children the chance to live?  Why would we give into the demands of a few abortion rights terrorists and organizations like Planned Parenthood who have no respect for human life to begin with?

Planned Parenthood terrorists in New York City have shown that, even on Thanksgiving, there is no honor or restraint among those that do not value human life.  If they are willing to subject us to their anti-life rhetoric even on Thanksgiving, where one of the things we are “thankful” for is life, these abortion rights terrorists will use any day to do the same.

We who are pro-life can be “thankful” that our position is so solid, so strong, so right, that we can take a day off here and there and focus on our families. This is “Black Friday”.  Most of us are out Christmas shopping, picking up whatever good deals we can find.

Want to venture a guess as to what Planned Parenthood terrorists of New York is using this time to do instead?

What Does It Mean To “Abortion Rights” If A Fetus Feels Anything?

Of course such an idea as a fetus feeling anything is “patently absurd” to begin with, right?  And women who are “overprotective” of their nonliving, nonhuman fetus are just ignorant, uneducated rubes making fools of themselves.  They haven’t been “schooled” properly by pro-abortion educators.

That has to be fact.  The entire credibility of the abortion rights movement rests on the idea that a fetus (an unborn child) is not actually alive, or even human until after it is born.  While still in the womb, though it is “developing”, whatever it is, according to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other abortion rights supporter, it is not human, nor does it have the right, legal or moral, to be considered human.

So, why should a pregnant woman worry about whether or not microwaves, cellphones, anti-depressants or anything else would be considered harmful to an entity that, for Planned Parenthood, NOW President, Terry O’Neill, and politicians like Nancy Pelosi – who wouldn’t let her “conscience thing” distract her absolute support for abortion, say isn’t even a living human being until it has been born?

Or, to put it another way – How can this nonliving, nonhuman “thing” we call a fetus, for which pro abortion rights supporters vehemently deny and absolutely reject is human, while it yet remains in the womb, have the capability of feeling anything that is happening to it – while it yet remains in the womb?  And why should any woman go through the trouble and hassle of caring that a “nonhuman” entity is being exposed to levels and doses of electromagnetic rays, waves and smoke that only affects living human beings?  Planned Parenthood, the “only authority” on the matter, contends a fetus is not alive, not a human being, has no claims or rights to be legitimately considered human beings and therefore is incapable of feeling anything that is happening to it.

And if it, though it is “nonhuman” and “nonliving”, can feel the effects of microwaves, anti-depressants, cigarette smoke, etc., what does that mean for abortion and abortion rights?  Certainly if a fetus can feel the effects of anything at all, it can feel the effects of the abortionist literally sucking out its life.  If a fetus can feel at all, then it can feel pain, right?  If a fetus can feel anything, it must be alive.  And either a fetus is alive or it is not.  If it is alive, then it is living.  If it is living, what is it living as?  A tree?  a shrub?  A bush?  Merely a collection of cells?  If a seed from a tree germinates, does it develop into a human being?

And when we start worrying about the health of a nonliving, nonhuman, unfeeling being, (like a toy doll) don’t we have some type of highly disturbed, deep mental issues we are dealing with?  Isn’t it time we went to see the corner shrink to find out what is going on with us?

Planned Parenthood tells us abortion is a safe and legal procedure, and very common; that there “are many things to think about” when deciding to have an abortion.  The first thing they reassure every woman contemplating abortion is that the “thing” inside of them isn’t alive, isn’t human and, other than the umbilical cord, has no real attachment to them; in effect saying to all these women, go ahead and smoke, pig out on sugary junk food and fatty, unhealthy calories, microwavable edibles; talk for hours on end on your cell phones as usual; and if you feel any depression, go ahead and take some anti-depressants while you are in the process of making the decision of having an abortion.  Remember – only you, a living, feeling human being will “feel” the affects.

NOW proclaims, “reproductive justice is every woman’s right“.  They have a list of reasons why that is and why abortion, “reproductive justice” as they call it, should be protected, expanded and government funded.  And they reassure their members that the real terrorists are pro-life supporters; the uneducated hicks, gun toting religious nuts who go around touting the evils of abortion.  But abortion, as NOW knows, can’t be “evil” if the fetus is indeed a nonliving nonhuman, unfeeling “thing”.  One can only contemplate true “evil” if the reverse was true.

NARAL maintains abortion is “our right to choose at every opportunity“.  They say the “real problem” is that “anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion”.  That is a real problem – if a fetus is a living, feeling human being.  But if a fetus is not a living, feeling human being, as NARAL insists it is not, then – what is the problem with exposing it to all the hazards and health risks we associate as dreadfully harmful to life and to living, feeling beings, which, NARAL protests, a fetus cannot be?

The ACLU states that in the “world we want” abortion consists of  “personal and private decisions about forming intimate relationships and building secure and healthy families”.  But they are ominous in their warning that “the struggle is getting worse”.  Hmm.  If the ACLU can’t prove in a court of law that a fetus is in fact an nonliving, unfeeling, nonhuman being, with all the resources and professionals they have at their immediate disposal, then the “struggle” will indeed “get worse” for the pro-abortion movement.

What more proof does humanity need to accept that a fetus is nothing more than the nonliving, unfeeling “thing” they – the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW – have been saying it is for the past forty years?  How much more money are we going to waste on “frauds” and “scams” that make us worry and fret over the unhealthy affects cellphones and cigarette smoke and microwaves are causing to the “thing” inside a woman?  “Things” cannot feel anything.  Living beings, human beings can feel.  Living beings, human beings are not “things”.  They are not toys and they are not to be toyed with.

There must be a method to the madness of the pro-abortion movement.  Or is it just madness?

Is Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment All That “Extreme”? Of Course Not, But…

That all depends on which side of the debate you are on.  If you are pro-life, this proposed amendment is just what you have been fighting for ever since Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in 1973.  If you are pro-abortion, any bill that limits access to, or funding for, abortion, from your point of view, is “extreme”.  In Mississippi, where it is expected this initiative will pass in a state that is perhaps the most religiously conservative state in America, this Personhood Amendment is “extreme”ly welcome to its citizens and long over due.

And it begs the question:  What is so “extreme” about protecting life from being maliciously, unnecessarily destroyed?

November 8 is the “due” date for when Mississippians will go to the polls to “deliver” unto its state their decision – whether they believe in “giving birth to” Proposition 26 – the Personhood Amendment as it is also known – and whether they want the state government of Mississippi to accept and enforce the position that life begins at conception (fertilization), therefore, and thereby, protecting all unborn children, including those in the embryonic state, from being destroyed, tampered with and manipulated for scientific purposes and aborted on demand.  Will the Personhood Amendment be “given life”, or “aborted” in the “womb” of Mississippi polling centers?

All the pro abortion groups, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc., are out in force to help defeat it.  HuffPost, NPR, The NY Times, MSNBC, and other liberal news outlets are also lending a hand in helping to defeat the measure.  And should it pass, the ACLU will be there to file the predictable lawsuit to have it declared unconstitutional, which may be just what the propositions sponsors and backers hope will happen.  What exactly does the text of the proposed amendment say that has these groups up in arms and worried?

The text is as followed.

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi:

SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’
or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the
functional equivalent thereof.”
This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation

It certainly is an “extreme”ly important piece of legislation that will have “extreme”ly consequential and sweeping ramifications for the rest of the country should it pass. And while it would ban abortion in the case of rape and incest (most incest by the way is also rape) there is nothing in the language of the text to indicate whether it would outlaw abortion even to save the mother’s life, a very contentious issue which even the vast majority within pro-life movement oppose.  However, in Mississippi, where many of its Democrats are pro-life, it is hard to imagine, without substantiated proof, that even they would oppose abortion if the mother’s life was legitimately at risk.

It means very simply that the state of Mississippi legally acknowledges life begins at conception (fertilization); that the state of Mississippi will be legally bound to define life as that which begins at conception; that Mississippi can legally prohibit abortion once conception takes place, and legally prohibit the use of pills or medication to remove this life within a woman’s womb.  Science, by the way, has long ago proven that life does begin at conception.  Unfortunately the evidence was not in existence back in the days of Roe vs. Wade.  If it was known then, and shown in court, Roe vs. Wade would have been rejected and over 50 million lives would not have been destroyed.  And even now, with the evidence for life beginning at conception, because it’s been nearly forty years since Roe vs. Wade, millions of people are satisfied that abortion is settled law and untouchable.

That has never set well the the many millions of Americans who have never held the view that Roe vs. Wade is “settled” law.

What Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment does is to upset, to unsettle the legal establishment by showing that even so called “settled law” is not set in stone; that the U.S. Constitution does in fact, not allow for a woman to indiscriminately, unnecessarily kill her unborn child “on demand”.  That’s not even what Roe vs. Wade allowed for.  However, because the 1973 ruling was so ambiguous, it opened up the door for abortion rights activists to insert whatever other legal protections for abortion they wanted.  And because the courts themselves have become so much more liberal, abortion rights groups have had these laws upheld.

Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for abortion “on demand”, simply because a woman felt she did not want to go through the pregnancy, whether she was emotionally or psychologically unprepared to give birth.  Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for abortion because a woman was too poor, or too young.  Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for “partial birth abortion” or any late term abortion.  But the law has been so corrupted over the decades by those in the pro abortion movement, like Planned Parenthood, it has come to mean, and to be interpreted to mean, anything a woman wants it to mean.

Roe vs. Wade was originally intended to allow a woman who had been raped the “right to privacy” to end the pregnancy the court’s majority believed at the time existed, if not in the ninth or fourteenth amendment to the constitution, then under its “due process clause”.  However, there were those in the court concerned that if the evidence to show that life began at conception ever did come to light, then this new law allowing abortion would be, and should be, overturned.

That is what the sponsors of Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment are banking on.  That because the evidence does exist for life beginning at conception (fertilization) the passage of this amendment, even if challenged in court (which it will be) it cannot be overturned.

Whether it passes or not, the fight will go on.  The only way to definitively end this fight is to change the minds and hearts of Americans.

The question, then, is  – Can we in the pro-life movement change enough hearts and minds in America to our side in time, before the pro-abortion movement can sway a majority of people to their side?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama’s America: Small vs. Big (More Obama Lies)

In a televised address, pandering to Gay rights groups and touting his support for repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama has called Republicans visions of America “small“.  Somehow, in the mind of Barack Obama, and liberals, a  “small’ America” encompasses a world view that is anti gays in the military, and where a “big America” encompasses a world view, and a more compassionate one at that, which is anti life in the womb.

Only a liberal like Barack Obama would be more concerned with ending the practice of discrimination in the military than say ending the practice of murder in the womb.  Only a liberal like Barack Obama would conflate military discrimination with a “small America”  (i.e., a small and narrow minded point of view) while bolstering support for other issues like abortion rights in a “big America” (i.e., big and kind-hearted and open minded).  And only a liberal like Barack Obama could not see how wrong-headed he is actually being.

Liberals view a “big America” as one in which an ever expanding government exists to protect us all from ourselves, and any past, present and future mistakes we might make, as well as to “protect” the rights of everyone, regardless of how outlandish – unless you are a Christian, and unless you are still in the womb – but in reality to “protect” the vote and keep liberals and Democrats in office.

But that’s not a “big America”, that’s just big government.  And Barack Obama, as with all liberals, would have you pay tribute for that protection through steeper taxes, more regulations and more government oversight into your personal lives so that you might enjoy living in Barack Obama’s “big America”.

Obviously Obama’s “small America” speech was nothing more than liberal code for his support of big, and bigger, government.  And ironically, for all Obama’s hatred of “small America” it was after all a small group of political figureheads which coerced the military into dropping DADT.  If Obama had gone out to “big America”, the American people themselves, DADT would still be in effect because most Americans supported it.

The question, then, is – how exactly does Barack Obama define a “Republican vision of small America”?  (Keeping in mind that this is merely a code for conservative bashing)

A “small America” from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  Our borders are protected from waves of illegal aliens, arms and terrorists sneaking back and forth into our country

  Our children are protected from a liberal in-school indoctrination including a biased, untrue and unchecked, anti-American point of view

  Our culture and society is protected from an out of control Judiciary system that refuses to adhere to our Constitution and insists on making up laws, throwing out others, which suits their own personal views and liberal agendas.

Conversely, a “big America”, from a liberal Obama’s point of view is, to name a few, an America in which:

  America has no borders, does not seek to repatriate (deport) those who have come to America illegally, and instead allows for a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens, (which, out of fairness, would have to include all future illegal aliens) despite the fact that this is a slap in the face to the millions of immigrants who have, and are trying to, come here through legal channels.  It’s also a slap in the face to common sense as it then becomes ridiculous for anyone who wants to come here to do so legally if, under Obama’s “big America” it becomes that much less of a hassle, and that much easier, to make the trek illegally, enter America and then claim the right of citizenship simply because they “have made it across” the border without being caught.

  Our children are taught (brainwashed) into despising America, its history and its principles, and our founding fathers because slavery was not abolished at our founding; women were not immediately given the right to vote until 1920 (and presumably not given the right to kill their child in the womb until 1973); poverty and homelessness were not wiped out, healthcare was not a “universal right”, the American Indian was uprooted from their ancestral land to make way for white Europeans, despite the fact that they never actually had a legal deed to the land, other than it had been occupied by their ancestors, to show proof of ownership; that all wealth creation in America was a direct result of the back breaking labor of both slaves and the poor, despise the fact that, slavery aside, many of the richest and wealthiest Americans made their money, rather than inherited it; that America, for all its mistakes, is inherently an evil and intolerant construct and therefore must be remolded into a nation which is continually “atoning” for its past mistakes and setting up government run program after program to better assist all those who have been “disenfranchised” throughout all of America’s history.

  Our judges are not held in check; are not held accountable for their actions; are not bound by the United States Constitution, as they are required, but rather are able to redefine and reinterpret law as they see fit – as they did in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion case where the Supreme court cited a protection in our Constitution giving women the right to kill their unborn child in the womb – a right that did not exist then, nor exists now, anywhere in the Constitution.   But a “right” that exists solely within the liberal agenda.

Barack Obama’s “big America” is nothing more than one big lie.  And within that big lie are more Barack Obama lies, one lie after another.  Which makes Barack Obama himself one “big” liar.  And one in which will turn out to be a big mistake for Obama, and all liberals, in the 2012 election.  Big time!

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

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

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

Michigan passed this ban its sponsor said because it –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this is of course a fallacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: