The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “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.

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

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

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

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

Getting Paid To Rape Your Children – Liberals Support it; Public Schools Encourage It…

How “safe” are your children, really, once they are under the watchful eye and influence of the public education system?  Are you even aware the public school you send your children to is working behind closed doors, and with extreme, radical left-wing and liberal organizations, to draw up curriculum which encourages your children, and their peers, to engage in sex with one another?

Every public school in America that is teaching children “safe sex” is engaged in a vicious canard with long-lasting repercussions including emotional and psychological damage, the scars of which never heal.  Once you relinquish your virginity, that’s it.  Whatever the reason, public education cannot wait for your children to “do it”.  They are eager and salivating for the opportunity to indoctrinate your children in sexual activity with verbal descriptions and “artistic” imagery and illustrations, provide them with every reason why abstaining is abnormal and unrealistic, and even accommodate them with “protection” such as condoms and birth control.  And they are damned incensed when conservatives attempt to interfere.

So it ought to come as no surprise that the Tennessee Bill 3310, which promotes abstinence only and specifically “warns against gateway sexual activity” is being met with scurrilous derision and venomous outrage by liberals, Planned Parenthood in particular.

Planned Parenthood Director of Education Elokin CaPese told WMC-TV that the bill is broad and unrealistic. Its prohibition of “gateway sexual activity” demonstrations would include health education models, she said.

Such as?

Holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex.  Planned Parenthood said that allowing state government to define local sex education curriculum could backfire.

But somehow allowing Planned Parenthood to “define local sex education curriculum” hits it out of the ballpark?  Somehow kids who engage in sex, however “safe”, are more healthy, are less at risk of becoming pregnant, or getting VD, STD”s or AIDS than kids who abstain from sex?  Planned Parenthood is worried that this bill will “backfire” because it might lead to kids not being able to hold hands in school?

Here is what the bill states:

(1) Exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student’s current or prior sexual experience;
(2) Encourage sexual health by helping students understand how sexual activity affects the whole person including the physical, social, emotional, psychological, economic and educational consequences of non-marital sexual activity;
(3) Provide factually and medically-accurate information;
(4) Encourage students to communicate with a parent, guardian, or other trusted adult about sex or other risk behaviors;
(5) Address the benefits of raising children within the context of a marital relationship and the unique challenges that single teen parents encounter in relation to educational, psychological, physical, social, legal, and financial factors;
(6) Discuss the interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression; and
(7) Educate students on the age of consent, puberty, pregnancy, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases, and the financial and emotional responsibility of raising a child.

Where in the hell does it say anything about not holding hands, or punishing students who do?  And even if a public school prohibited its students from holding hands while in school, or on school property, during school hours, there is nothing unconstitutional about that.  It might be, to a degree, going overboard.  On the other hand, it is hardly as offensive as encouraging kids to “go all the way” with one another, which is what so-called “safe sex” education promotes, and what teachers encourage as they instruct their students in this type of curriculum.

Planned Parenthood, of course, is not the only organization that supports raping children in this manner.  The Democrat Party supports this form of rape, as do all liberal organizations.  This is one of the myriad differences between conservatives, who support abstinence-only education and liberals.  What exactly is the benefit of intentionally putting children in harms way by promoting such risky, dangerous and irrational behavior?  To say liberals just want kids to be “safe” when/if they do engage in sex is another canard. Liberals want kids to engage in sex at such a young age, and they want kids to be as “prepared” as possible for when that times comes.  If they didn’t, they would support “abstinence-only”.  That we all know some teenagers will engage in sex is still no reason to encourage all teens to engage in it – and teaching “safe sex” education, and instilling them with ideas of “normalcy” and making the experience as “comfortable” for them as possible only entices young teens with impressionable minds to let down their guard and give into temptations they are better off waiting to indulge in.

Conversely, abstinence-only teaches kids that sex, while it is a normal part of the human experience with ample rewards, holds risks and consequences for those who engage in it at young ages, who do it not out of an actual love for one another, but out of a lust caused by an imbalance in their hormones.  (And it is appropriate to refer to this type of behavior as lust rather than love because their hormones are “raging” and puberty is sending all kinds of messages to their brains that kids cannot fully process or understand.)  It is imperative teachers not betray the teacher/student confidence and relationship by instructing kids that it is “normal” for them to partake in sex.

Most kids do abstain from sex during their teens.  If a majority of kids can find within themselves the willpower and the courage to remain virgins through high school and even college – why do we want Planned Parenthood trying to undermine and exploit, and expose, our children to risks and dangers they need not have to worry about, on the basis that because only a small percentage of teens ever do give into temptation and peer pressure, therefore every child ought to be instructed in “safe-sex” education, and ought not be discouraged from engaging in it as long as it is “safe” sex?

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.

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?

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?

Respect for Women Means Being Abstinent And Pro-Life

We can blame women directly for men’s ill-behavior toward them.  If women don’t want men acting like “animals”, women ought not to encourage them to give into “animalism” and the behavior for which women decry as being sexist, degrading and anti-woman.  It is the fault of women – those women who themselves have no respect for themselves, their own bodies and that of life itself.  And it is also the fault of men – those men who enjoy having sex with women, but do not want to marry them first.

If a woman is an advocate of “free” sex, sex before marriage and sex with multiple partners, what kind of a man is she going to attract other than a man who himself only sees women as sex objects, someone to delight in for a few minutes and whom he never has to see again?  What does any woman expect, the lower she lets slip her moral standards, the reaction to a man is going to be who is literally being invited to partake in her, ravage her body and then walk away without having to worry about the consequences?

In other words, men who truly respect women do not have sex with women outside of marriage, and women who want men to respect them don’t flaunt themselves in front of men, for men and to attract men for the sole purpose of sex.  Having sex, wanting sex and engaging in sex is human nature.  But humans are not the animals they once were, long, long, long ago.  Either women need to start respecting themselves, and their own bodies, by keeping their bodies closed until they are married, or women need to shut up and stop whining about how men are “sexist pigs”.   Either women want to be degraded, taken advantage of, used, treated like a piece of meat, chewed up and then spit out – or they want to be shown more respect.  Men don’t respect “loose” women any more than women respect “loose” men.

Women can’t expect men to be both respectful of them, but also lustful towards them.  Women can’t expect men to behave cordially around them, if women themselves are saying “come here” with their eyes and fingers.  Women can’t expect men to look away from women the more of themselves they put on full display.

So, how does any man – how is it expected any man will – as a boy who learns in school that having, and experimenting with, sex with girls is a normal part of adolescence and growing up, then grow up to respect women after he has spent his teen years “making friends with” as many teen girls as he could?  And girls are being taught the same thing as well, with regards to boys and their bodies.   Here, on the one hand, there is a demand from liberal feminists that kids know all about “safe” sex and how to have “safe” sex with one another (because they are going to do it anyway, and public school teachers, rather than take up a position of responsibility reverse course and instill irresponsibility) and on the other hand, liberal feminists are outraged, horrified and “shocked” with the amount of “gambling” going on in a girl’s or woman’s “back room”.  It’s a dangerous double standard being played by women.

Teaching kids sex at their age, and sex before marriage is normal, does not instill respect in one another.  Whether boys and girls abstain from sex before marriage or not, the longer they hold off into their adulthood, until they are married, the more respect they will have for one another and the fewer unwanted pregnancies and STD’s that will result..

Yet, the same worthless liberal feminists that demand a very thorough teaching of sex education be taught in public schools, where impressionable young boys and girls are being told that having sex at their age is perfectly normal (and won’t be prohibited, interfered with or frowned upon by their teaching staff) are the same hypocritical women that call men “sexist pigs” and decry being degrading by the very men who, as boys, learned in public school – from the dogma of liberal feminism – that it’s perfectly normal for them to view girls and women as sex objects, and to give into their carnal desires.

Ladies and gentlemen – how does taking away the truly greatest power a woman has over a man, namely her virginity, create a respect for women?  Liberal feminists are the “Frankenstein” which created the monster in the first place.  And now they cannot control their creation.  Is anyone surprised?

Liberal feminists, “worried” about the rise, or the prevalence, of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in young girls and women, rather than teach girls and young women to respect their bodies by abstaining from sex, encourage them to “just do it”.  But liberal feminists never tell impressionable young girls that so-called “safe” sex can still result in both pregnancy and STD’s.  Is it any wonder, then, why these same liberal feminists demand there be free contraception available, and abortions?  If young girls and women “loved their bodies” enough to abstain from sex until married Planned Parenthood would be out of business.  So would liberal feminism.  Both are certainly morally bankrupt.

There is absolutely nothing “prudish” or “backward” about boys and girls, young men and women, waiting to have sex until they are married.  Women can’t demand all men stop looking upon them as mere objects if they themselves are the ones giving men the green light to “go”.  Women can’t demand men stop their “sexist” attitude towards them if they themselves have the attitude that sex in an unmarried relationship is normal and acceptable.  Women can’t blame men for degrading them if they are degrading themselves by being so sexually open with their bodies.

If respect is a “two-way street”, why do so many women allow themselves to travel down that street in the wrong direction?  Isn’t it obvious, sooner or later, there will be a collision of a consequential magnitude?

Brainwashed Teenager Argues for Right To Kill Unborn Children

The Arianna Nation “Youth Movement” has a piece written by a young teen, Alton Lu, who wants to know why pro-life Americans would have the audacity to meddle in the affairs of  teenagers and all Americans who wish to engage in sex, and demand to be provided free contraception and free abortions – paid for by you, the taxpayer – and what will happen if abortion is ever banned and if the cost of contraception is ever reverted back to the people who want to engage in sex.

Alton Lu is a poster child for what liberals, the Left and Planned Parenthood have managed to do with, and to, our youth in public schools.  Alton is sincerely afraid of conservatives and the pro-life movement.  And why not?  Liberalism has brainwashed Alton into believing contraception and abortion are constitutional rights and that “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” are at stake; that conservatives are actually putting the lives of women in danger by pushing for abortion bans and trying to reverse the contraception mandate that would force Catholic and religious hospitals and institutions to provide women with services that are counter to their religious and moral convictions.

Writes Alton:

“What happens if abortion is no longer legal? What happens if planned parenthoods across the nation are shut down? What happens when students are continually subjected to abstinence-only education and people unable to receive contraception?”

To be fair, Alton legitimately and probably does not know what abortion really is, that it is in fact the killing of an unborn child, and probably has never seen a picture of a fetus in the womb. If Alton still supports abortion, the young teen has truly had a successful brainwashing, and is an example of what can happen, what is happening, to your children in public schools all over America.

If abortion is no longer legal, women will have to give girth to their babies which means more babies will be saved from being killed in, or out of, the womb.  Liberals seem to care less about this.  Some women will seek the “back-alley abortions” at their own peril.  However, that women would, of their own free will, drive themselves to engage in such madness, is no excuse to legalize, and to keep legal, a practice which kills unborn children.  More women who do become pregnant will accept the pregnancy and give birth.  Let us hope that more and more women’s crisis centers will be in operation, run by actual women who want to help pregnant women and girls during their pregnancy, provide them with the psychological and emotion support they need, and, if they cannot keep the child, help them find a family that can adopt the child after it is born.

Having to sit through abstinence-only education ensures teenagers are receiving the proper sex education they need, need to hear and need to hear from adults and teachers placed in, and with, the responsibility of educating them.  Thus, fewer teenagers are brainwashed into believing sex at their age is normal and acceptable.

Fewer teenager would also be engaging in sex, which would reduce the need for contraception, and lower the risks associated with sex (STD’s, etc.), and prevent more pregnancies, unwanted or otherwise, from occurring.  It would also reduce the reason for all those “Planned Parenthoods”, therefore they will not be missed.

Abstinence-only prevents pregnancy 100% of the time it is practiced.  Sex, even so-called “safe” sex can still lead to pregnancy and sexually related diseases.  If someone, including two teenagers, want to engage in sex, they ought not be encouraged by adults, and especially teachers, and they ought not be provided free contraception – paid for by the taxpayer – to make it easier for them to do.  Neither should any american.  If you want to have sex, fine.  Pay for the contraception yourself – and man up, and woman up, by dealing with any of those “consequences” should they arise afterwards.

“This isn’t legislation for the life of the fetus. This isn’t propaganda for the sake of the women’s life. It’s a pathetic attack by narrow field of religious zealots to impose their beliefs upon all women in the United States. Now people wish to use pregnancy and labor as punishment for sex. Policymakers use the politically-correct term “Suffer the consequences.”

Pure Planned Parenthood, liberal feminist BS.  Abortion is not just a religious issue, it’s a moral issue that is one of the defining issues of our time.  People who engage in sex, if they are “punished” with pregnancy “punish” themselves.  Why should the American taxpayer be “punished” by being forced to flip the bill for someone’s irresponsibility?

“Those who do not support abortion and adamantly despise it should be at the front lines, battling for the use of birth control. The best way to stop abortions is to ensure no unwanted fetus is created. Those who do not support abortion should be crying out for true sexual education, not the useless dribble called abstinence-only. There would be no need to save the life of unborn babies if people are able to prevent a pregnancy.

The best way to stop pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, is to not engage in sex in the first place.  We who do not support abortion are at the front lines – to demand an end to abortion and to demand an end to the liberal dogma that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control and an overall part of “women’s health”.  It’s not.

Likewise, the best way to “ensure an wanted fetus is not created” is to not engage in sex in the first place.  If you want to engage in sex, nobody is trying to take that away from you.  However, if you do engage in sex, and become pregnant, having the right to kill your unborn child – and have that child killed at our expense – is not an option, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

“True sexual education” is abstinence-only, which does empower women more so that “safe” sex.  In other words, the more a women tells a man “No” to sex, rather than “yes”, the more the woman can control, and have control, over her own body.  The “looser” she is, the less respect any man will have for her and for her body, or want to have.

“I would question those who do not agree with my ideas. A paradox has been created with those who fight to stop both abortions and prevention. If you bring down abortion, prevention must be lifted up. If you bring down prevention, abortion must be lifted up… Or there’s the off-chance these religious zealots can actually convince the people of the United States to not have sex…

Your ideas are not only “questioned” they are being challenged.  Alton, you are far too young, and far too ignorant, (a result of the public education you have received, and the liberal brainwashing you have undergone) to fully comprehend just how dangerously wrong, and wrong-headed you are.  Your youth may be your salvation.  You have time to open your eyes and see why abortion is wrong and how Planned Parenthood, the public school system and liberalism has brainwashed you.

Fighting abortion is not to suppress women, to take away rights, to keep women “barefoot and pregnant” or to take away power.  Fighting abortion is to save the lives of unborn children.  Either life has value or it hasn’t.  Conservative and pro-life Americans have more respect for life, and for your life, than the liberals who brainwashed you have for you.

We don’t want to convince you not to have sex.  We do want to convince you not to have sex until you are married.  Outside of that – if you do, why should we “suffer the consequences for your mistakes?  And – why should the unborn baby you help to create “suffer those consequences” as well?

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady

Well, it didn’t take long for Nancy Pelosi to take her foot out of her mouth and say something else incredibly stupid (and dangerous) about contraception, the Catholic Church and religious conscience exemptions.  And it proves that if there is a wrinkle in any socialist driven bill, no matter how nasty or stubborn a wrinkle it is, or unconstitutional, Nancy Pelosi will be there to iron it out.

The issue of self insured institutions was the spotlight of controversy on Thursday, and in particular, self insured religious institutions.  The Obama Administration had earlier reached a “compromise” with regards to forcing religious institutions to provide contraception, including abortifacients.  The compromise?  Putting the onus of paying for the contraception on insurance companies instead of religious institutions.  However, a snag developed which was brought to the attention of the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Some insurance providers are themselves religious institutions.  Now what?

Said Pelosi:

“Yes, I think that all institutions who cover, who give, health insurance should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women.”

In other words, that “compromise” is as meaningless as it is a sham.  Democrats have been both insistence and unabashedly vocal about forcing religious institutions to pay for contraception (including pregnancy ending pills and medication) against their religious and moral convictions.  This push for more access, and “free” access, comes under the disguise of “women’s health” to safeguard the “reproductive rights” of all women.  In fact, it is being done at the behest of, and merely to please and pleasure, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations and keep them in business with taxpayer dollars.

Pelosi’s anti-Catholic rhetoric is long-standing.

The Democrats have, from the beginning, demanded more access to contraception and birth control for women.  But how to get around the cost factor was always the main issue, the big “wrinkle” in the fabric of this monstrous agenda.  Obama’s contraception mandate is the icing on the “reproductive rights” cake.  Not only does this mandate provide women with that access, but “free” contraception paid for by insurance companies, which will have that passed down to us, the taxpayers through higher premiums, loss of benefits, etc, and whatever cost the government picks up.

The “slight hitch” in the mandate is what the Iron-ing Lady is trying to smooth over.  Not so much with Catholic and religious institutions – she has already burnt a hole clear through in that endeavor.  But with her pro-abortion friends who have long been fighting to get more money from government for their struggling and floundering abortion business, and who are worried about any “conscience clause”, any opt out for religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, that might make it more difficult for them in their pro-abortion agenda.

The contraception mandate, for now, seems to be their golden ticket.  However, Catholic Bishops, Catholics themselves, and Americans of every religious and conservative, and moral persuasion, are gearing up for a fight to counter what is, and has become, an attack on the constitution itself and the constitutional right of religious freedom.  Undoubtedly this fight will find its way to the U.S Supreme Court where it, depending on who the nine Justices are when the case comes before them – which may very well depend on who our next President will be – will be settled.

In-between that time, the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, will continue her attempt to smooth over any and all wrinkles in this, and any, future socialist driven agendas.  However, the more she must “smooth over” the wrinkles, the more she inadvertently is wearing down the fabric of the agenda she is trying to iron out.  The good news for us – conservatives – is that because Democrats always produce and manufacture cheap and shoddy legislation, there will always be wrinkles for our Iron-ing Lady to smooth out.

This contraception mandate, and how to both force religious institutions, and exempt them, at the same time, from having to provide services they find morally objectionable, will be one tough wrinkle for the Iron-ing Lady to smooth over and may well prove to be too exhausting for her in the long run.

Perhaps Pelosi ought to just leave the iron burning on the mandate, let it burn a hole through and try to mend the hole she has already made with the Catholic Church.   Or – perhaps she ought to just put her foot back in her mouth and keep it there.

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’?

Rush Limbaugh’s Answer To Why “Contraception Must Be free”

Rush Limbaugh asks the question, on his radio program, “Why must contraception be free”?  Liberals and Democrats, including Barack Obama, under the disguise and masquerade of “women’s health” are demanding women have access to free contraception – paid for by the American taxpayer.  Contraception, they say, saves lives, prevents diseases and unwanted pregnancy.  But that is not the real reason liberals are demanding it.  And we should not be fooled into believing and accepting that liberals and Democrats are anything other than the deviant, perverted, anti-life “culture of death” that they are.  There is absolutely nothing benevolent with their push for free contraception – paid for by the American taxpayer.  Nor does forcing religious hospitals and its staff to provide contraception and abortions have anything to do with “women’s health”, but has everything to do with Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat Party’s, socialist, anti-religious agenda.

So, why must contraception be free?  The answer is obvious.  Free contraception offers every American man and women, girl and boy, who engages, who wants to engage, in pre-marital sex with multiple partners what they really want – the luxury, the freedom and the convenience to continue that practice without consequences and without cost.  Likewise, the more people engaging in sex before marriage, the less likely, and the less incentive, there will be to even get married.  Marriage, pro-family, pro-life are all counter to Democrat ideas and the more people who get married (before having sex), the more likely they are to be and to become conservatives.  Having to pay for contraception always discouraged more people from having sex.  Removing that obstacle will ensure the millions of Americans who now do engage in any unsafe, unmarried sex, including teenagers, and the millions of Americans who otherwise would have held off, a false security, an unsafe safety net which Obama and the Democrat Party have conspicuously placed before the American public.

Free contraception also removes the stigma of unmarried people engaging in sex, thus free contraception invites others, who might have had serious reservations about sex before marriage, and in particular, sex at a very young age, to be more sexually pro-active.  Having someone else pay for your sexual delights also encourages more sex between people because the cost – which is nothing – is no longer a factor in whether or not, say two teenagers, worry about those “awful” consequences of unprotected sex.  Free contraception, it must be noted, is not just about condoms, but also pregnancy preventing pills and pregnancy ending pills, and it includes free abortions.  “Just do it” certainly has taken on a new meaning.

There is absolutely no doubt liberals want people engaging in lots of pre-marital sex.  And that includes teenagers.  Here’s proof to validate that statement.  Free contraception allows the government to control, and to have more control over, one’s behavior.  Abstinence, conversely, which actually does empower women, is impossible for government to control because with abstinence there is nothing going on with which to control.  Since liberals never advocate for abstinence, but “safe” sex education, it must be accepted that their agenda supports teenage sex rather than opposes it.  And since the only “safe” sex is abstinence, which our government opposes teaching to teenagers, we can only consider our government’s motivations to be very sinister with regards to our teenagers.

Providing contraception for free, through the federal government, makes it much easier for the federal government to control people and their behavior than having them go through their doctor, which millions of Americans don’t have, and having to pay even a portion of the bill which is still expensive for millions of Americans.  Free contraception removes the middle man and makes government the only source people can, and will, go to.

There is no difference in what Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are doing than what a drug dealer does.  A drug dealer provides the fix an addict needs.  Often drugs are given away free to new users, the same as the government wants to do with contraception.  But the cost always returns.  The cost, in this case, is submission and enslavement to the Democrat Party and the socialist agenda in exchange for free contraception.

The connection between free contraception and government control over people (in particular the young and impressionable, and those more easy to sway) through providing free contraception is key to Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s socialist agenda.  In order to ensure their control they need only get people into the places which will be dispensing it – like Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and all the “women’s health” clinics which will pop up all over the country that have nothing really to do with women’s health but rather everything to do with indoctrinating and brainwashing women (and men) into liberal feminism, socialism and the Democrat Party.  Forcing religious hospitals to provide free contraception merely takes away another safe place women and girls can go for their real health needs and education, and is done to further diminish the role of religion and morality in America.

What better way for a deviant government, and political party, to control people than providing them with free contraception (as a hook) to engage in behavior that leads to less of a civilized society?  Uncivilized societies give their governments certain rights and privileges, and excuses, to become more dictatorial, more ruthless, more powerful.  We are seeing that right now with Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Free contraception is but another way the Democrats have devised in which to hook you, all of us, into their socialist agenda.  They would rather your mind was more on sex than on more important and pressing matters, like the fact that Democrats are doing everything they can to wreck out economy and abolish our Constitution and our constitutional rights.  And all Democrats have to do to make so many of us salivate and bend is to put the word “free” in front of something and we fall head over heels in love.

Having sex has consequences.  Even when free contraception – free, but paid for by American taxpayers – is being provided.  The government never gave anyone anything.  And certainly the government never gave anyone anything for free.  There is a cost involved with free contraception, and the question is not necessarily “why must contraception be free”?  We know why Obama and the Democrat Party demand it be free.  Rather the question is – have we become so enamored and swept away with getting something for “free” we have lost all sense and sensibility and we are willing to trade our morality and civility for a lie that ultimately will cost us what we really most hold dear – our constitutional freedoms?  Is losing that worth the price of a “free” one night stand?

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.

Abolishing “Women’s Rights” A Top Priority

From the Arianna Nation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Julianne Moore: Hollywood Leftist, Liberal And Anti-Choice

Julianne Moore (the actress) wants women to know she “is watching“.  In particular this upcoming 2012 election, and the candidates positions on “women rights” – birth control in particular, but abortion to be clear.  She is another one of these Hollywood, liberal, leftists who, although she opposes government involvement and intrusions in her life, and that of women seeking birth control and abortion, and other “reproductive rights”, she seems perfectly at ease with the government telling the rest of us that we can mind our own business when it comes to it (government) taking our taxes – our money – and using that money – our money – to provide “free” birth control and other “necessities” to women.  In other words, from our prospective, the pro-life and conservative one, Julianne Moore is anti-choice, as she would seek to deny us our choice not to fund her, and other women’s, irresponsible “health” decisions.

Leftists, like Julianna, despise government intrusion, except when that intrusion provides them with something, like free contraception, free abortions, free health care, free education, free housing, free clothing, free government grants to create repulsive and despicable pieces of art and literature, free anything and everything at taxpayer – our – expense.

She writes:

“It’s hard to believe that in 2012 birth control is being threatened, and that there are candidates who think the U.S. Supreme Court victory from 1965, giving married couples the right to use birth control, should be overturned.”

Who wants to “overturn” birth control?  In other words, there is a difference, which Julianna apparently does not understand, in a woman paying for the birth control herself, or having it given to her through a private donation, and the government handing her either low-cost or free birth control pills  at taxpayer – our – expense.  Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion (but mostly if one is pro-life) most of us do not want our money, which we earned and then had confiscated by the government, going into programs, funding, purchases, etc. which we find to be repugnant.  That is not the purpose or responsibility of government.  Julianna Moore, another liberal leftist simply either does not care or does not understand that.

Julianne moans:

“And there are some candidates supporting “personhood” policies that could make birth control illegal for all women.”

Birth control which prevents a pregnancy is not the issue.  What is at issue is that birth control which ends a pregnancy already begun and in progress.  And certainly any private hospital ought to be exempt from providing any services it finds morally objectionable.  And while a public hospital, because it is taxpayer-funded, cannot do the same, its staff ought not be forced to make decisions contrary to their moral and religious beliefs.  Go to any public hospital and see whether all its staff would turn away a woman looking for medical attention.

Julianne Moore wants the government to keep its “hands” of her body, but wants to the government to force its hand upon Catholic hospitals and its staff to provide “free” birth control and other contraception to women against its moral and religious convictions.

Here is another liberal, leftist lie from Julianna:

“We all know that birth control is essential to women’s health. And access to affordable birth control is essential to keeping women healthy”

Birth control has little to no bearing on a woman’s “health”.  Birth control is exactly what it says it is and exactly focused on the one thing it says it does in its name – birth control.  That women want to be sexually active is their own business.  That they would want us, the taxpayer, to, in the end, pay for their irresponsibility, is our business, specifically because they want us to pay for their mistakes so that they may continue their sexual “liberation” ideology.

Julianne tells a story about a girl from Chicago who had to “rely” on Planned Parenthood for low-cost birth control.

“Without Planned Parenthood, she wouldn’t have been able to afford the medications that kept her healthy enough to become the mother she is today.”

There is something altogether puzzling and suspicious about this story.  The girl, who she alleges suffers from endometriosis, for whatever reason could not be treated in a real hospital, but had to use Planned Parenthood.  Hospitals do not turn people away, even poor people.  If birth control, or whatever the ingredients are that go into making birth control, really helped control the damage, a hospital would have provided her with it, and probably also at low-cost.  Could it be that this girl was, or wanted to be sexually active and that is the reason the hospital turned her away, and why she had to resort to Planned Parenthood?

Says Julianna:

“So when politicians talk about eliminating Title X, the nation’s family planning program, they are talking about taking away affordable birth control from than five million women and men in this country.  And when they say they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act — they are talking about taking away one of the most significant advances for women’s health in a generation — birth control without co-pays.”

Again, the only thing that politicians are, or should be, talking about is whether or not taxpayers are the ones who will be stiffed with the bill.  If there is no co-pay, who pays for the birth control?  Isn’t that answer obvious?  If women want affordable birth control – and that birth control which prevent the pregnancy before it occurs – they can either pay for it themselves, or look for a charitable organization which, through private donations, will help them out.  It is not our responsibility, the taxpayers, to provide the necessary means for women who want to be sexually active to be so.

Women like Julianna Moore want “freedom of choice” but at the same time want those of us who oppose that “choice” to nonetheless pay for the “choices” they make.  It’s utter and absolute liberal nonsense.  Most conservatives don’t actually care if a woman is sexually active.  It’s none of our business, and we keep it that way.  However, once a sexually active woman starts demanding birth control and other “health” services at our expense – we do take issue with that.  Why is that unreasonable?

Julianne concludes:

“So, this year, in this election, I am committing to watching even more vigilantly. And making sure my friends, family, everyone understands what’s at stake.

What is “at stake” is whether or not government grows and expands, and interferes, in the lives and “choices” regarding those of us who oppose paying for birth control and other “women’s health concerns” which are totally irrelevant and unnecessary in the real world, expect to allow women to engage in activities that are harmful, dangerous, irresponsible, and which may result in her getting pregnant.

Women all always telling men to “keep it zipped up”.  Why can’t they do the same?  And if they can’t, we are we the ones that must pay, literally, for their “choice” to be sexually impulsive?  Woman up, Julianna, and take responsibility for your own actions.

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?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: