The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards

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

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

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

Richards celebrate Roe vs. Wade as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another of Cecile’s canards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 23, 2012 Posted by | abortion, feminist loons, Planned Parenthood | , , , , , , , , , | 41 Comments

What Happens When You Call Michelle Obama A “Lyin’ Ass Bitch”?

How many of us would be so bold as to call Michelle Obama a “lyin’ ass bitch”?  Call it “tongue and cheek“, call it what you will.  When it was allowed and condoned  on the “Jimmy Fallon Show” to happen to Michele Bachmann, for which a serious apology has yet to be made, the Mainstream Media snickers, snores and sneers its snooty snouts.  Ah, but when it’s Michelle Obama, the First Lady, wife of Barack Obama – Democrat – who makes some pretty wild, provocative and unorthodox claims of her own with regards to healthy eating, how and what all Americans should be eating, and what she actually eats herself, the MSM is emphatically embedded with her, emasculating and embarrassing itself for embracing empty emotions.

When it comes to Republican First Ladies, like Laura Bush, Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan, Democrats, and such liberal sympathizers, never missed an opportunity to mock them.  Watch virtually any episode of Saturday Night Live.  Or, better yet, just watch MSNBC or CNN any time.  First Amendment and freedom of speech, liberals all cowardly hide behind it.  When conservatives ridicule Michelle Obama for her “war” on obesity, for trying to engorge the power of the federal government by forcing all of us to tighten our belts we are called racist.  (Michelle Obama, you may not be aware, is black.)

So a double standard exists when it comes to the politics of poking fun at Republicans and Democrats, and their families. However, when Democrats ridicule a Republican First Lady, it is done intentionally to inflict insult and injury.  When A Republican mocks a Democrat First Lady, such as Rush Limbaugh and others often do to Michelle Obama, there are “unmistakable undertones and undercurrents of undeniable, undignified racism”.  (Michelle Obama is black.)  Unrealistic, of course.

What precisely did Michele Bachmann do or say to warrant her being branded a “lyin’ ass bitch”?  Politicians, who are more proficient in “promise making” and promiscuity, and profiting from, and protecting, their profile, are not exactly proficient in “truth” to begin with.  But dare a conservative speak the truth:

Taxing the rich will hurt all Americans

Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security need to be overhauled

Abortion is wrong and Roe Vs. Wade must be overturned

Drill, baby drill – for oil in America

Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem – Ronald Reagan

Cut taxes, cut tax rates, cut regulations, cut spending, cut governmental waste

Ideas like these are always ridiculed by the left.  As long as the left persists they always will be.  Don’t view it as disparaging.  View it as an opportunity to prove your quality.  Conservatives have the right ideas about how this country ought to be operated.  These ideas, when debated – when properly debated – are easy to prove.

Taxing the rich does hurt all Americans.  It is, after-all, the rich who create the businesses and the jobs.  How does raising taxes on them help their business, and how does raising taxes help to create more jobs within their business?  Democrats have never been able to properly answer that, nor have they been made to by the MSM.

Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security do need to be overhauled if these programs are ever to remain solvent for future generations.  And until something better comes along and is enacted, this is what we have.  How is raising taxes on the rich going to help solve the looming crisis of these programs if it is true that all the money the rich own, combined, will not even make a dent?  Democrats have never been able to properly answer that, nor have they been made to by the MSM.

Drilling for oil in America, of which there is an abundance, is imperative if we are ever to become independent of the foreign oil markets in the Middle East.  That it takes roughly seven years to bring one of these oil lines into operation is irrelevant.  How many of these lines could be operational now if Democrats had not blocked them during the Clinton Administration, or even during the George W. Bush Administration.  Democrats have not been able to properly answer that, nor have they been made to by the MSM.

Abortion is the killing (the murder, morally) of an unborn child.  Take a look at this new video “From Conception to Birth” and see if you can honestly disagree with the premise that an unborn child is indeed, and in fact a human life worth protecting.  Either human life has value or it hasn’t.  As technology advances we are seeing very clearly just how human an unborn child really is, and how soon it becomes a human being.  Yet, Democrats are staunchly pro-abortion.  Why?  And why do Democrats still insist, in light of all the hard evidence, that an unborn child is nothing more than a lifeless, unfeeling collection of cells?  Democrats have never been able to properly answer that, nor have they made to by the MSM.

Government in of itself is not the problem.  Too much government is the problem.   Too much government in our lives and our businesses has created a situation where our freedoms and liberties have been compromised and put in jeopardy.  By allowing government to be engaged in this unhealthy interaction, as it now is, is the reason why taxes and tax rates are so high; the reason why regulations are so crippling; the reason why government is so over bloated now and why it continues to grow; the reason why Democrats call on the rich to pay more, to “pay their fair share”.  Democrats support big government and big government initiatives, despite all known and documented facts to the contrary that prove lowering taxes, tax rates and eliminating regulations actually spurs more economic growth. more prosperity – which makes us all that much more free and independent.  Why do Democrats support a big government that enslaves us all?  Democrats have never been able to properly answer that, nor have they been made to by the MSM.

So, here we have another situation, created by another liberal Democrat – a drummer for “The Jimmy Fallon Show” who took it upon himself to insinuate that Michele Bachmann, because she is a conservative, is thus a “lyin’ ass bitch”.  And yet, would anyone have the audacity, the courage, to call Michelle Obama a “lyin’ ass bitch” for her undocumented nonsense on obesity all the while she is gorging herself on the same high in calorie, high in fat, foods she is complaining is the reason for the rising obesity rates in America?  The same foods that are stereotypical black, (which Michelle Obama is) and yet enjoyed by everyone, regardless of color?

You can try asking Democrats.  But, as we know, they have never properly been able to answer that, nor have they been made to by the MSM.

November 26, 2011 Posted by | government, politics, scams | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

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

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

She writes:

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

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

She continues:

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

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

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

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

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

Says Goldberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is it she is afraid women will learn?

November 10, 2011 Posted by | abortion, Michelle Goldberg, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, politics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Of Mississippi, Abortion Politics, The Right To Life, The Right To Kill – And Why We Fight For The Unborn

D-Day – November 8, 2011

A day which may very well live in infamy.  Even yet, pro abortion groups are calling out all supporters, mobilizing their forces, mustering their defenses, making phone calls, sending out e-mails, petitions, etc., for the day in Mississippi when voters of this state will go to the polls to make history – by defining life as beginning at conception, rather than sometime after the mother gives birth.

The pro-life movement has been gearing for this event ever since Roe vs. Wade, and the decades that followed, when abortion rights advocates began broadening the 1973 ruling to include abortion all the way up to giving birth; when abortion became a “right to privacy”; a “women’s right” issue; “abortion on demand”; when Planned Parenthood and others began to demand taxpayer funding for all abortions and demand hospitals and doctors perform abortions against their moral or religious objections; when abortion became, in the eyes, hearts and minds of so many millions of Americans, brainwashed by a liberal, anti-life agenda, as “settled law”.

Nothing in the eyes, hearts and minds of a liberal is “settled law” if they don’t like the law.  Why should it be any different with those of us in the pro-life camp?  And while we have the Constitution on our side and the proof that life in fact does begin at conception (which did not exist at the time of Roe vs. Wade; which, if if had, Roe vs. Wade would never have become law), we still have an uphill battle to fight.

The complaint by pro-abortion supporters is its “vagueness”.  The problem with this argument is that pro-abortion supporters would object to an anti-abortion proposition even if it was absolutely defined.  In other words, if the proposition, in so many words, stated something along the lines of:

Whereas human life shall be defined as that life which begins at conception (fertilization), and as such shall be granted, even in the unborn stage, Personhood status, and the same rights and liberties, including the right to life, as anyone who has been born; that, because the unborn are recognized as human beings, they shall not be indiscriminately killed (aborted) in the womb – or partially in the womb – for any reason except to save the life of the mother, or where there is a clearly defined, and specific, health risk to the mother in which her life, as attested to by professional, competent and accredited doctors, is in danger, or where she might die without otherwise ending her pregnancy;

That whereas an embryo is recognized as human life, it shall not be destroyed or used for its stem cells in, or for, other medical or scientific experiments unless in a manner that allows for its development into a fetus and ultimate birth.

What’s wrong with that?

Pro-abortion supports, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists, so called “women’s rights” advocates, demand a woman be allowed to legally kill her unborn child at any stage of her pregnancy for any reason.  Pro-abortion supporters want it all their way, and pretend to be shocked and flabbergasted when pro-life supporters dare to challenge that.

Pro-life Mississippians will be going for the whole “kit and caboodle” this time around, rather than pick away at the pro-abortion agenda one slice at a time.  We’ve tried, in vane, over the decades to at least end certain types of abortions, like partial birth abortion, and abortion in the third trimester; we’ve tried to stop abortions “for any reason”, including psychological, emotional and financial by providing alternatives to abortion for those mother’s who do not wish, or who cannot afford, to keep the child; we’ve tried to prevent minors from obtaining an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge; we’ve tried to end the taxpayer funding of abortion and forcing hospitals and doctors from performing abortions against their moral or religious objections.

On some counts we have succeeded, on others we have failed.  On some counts where we have succeeded, we have seen those victories overturned by liberal courts.

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  We who are pro-life contend life does have value.  That is why we fight for it, and will always fight for it.

Planned Parenthood, et. al., contend the unborn are neither human, nor life, despite the fact that there is scientific proof to counter that claim – proof which Planned Parenthood desperately wants to prevent being shown to a woman contemplating abortion.  What possible rational could there be for Planned Parenthood wanting to suppress any evidence, such as a sonogram, that very clearly shows the human life within her?

The answer is not so much wrapped around the money being profited off abortions as it is wrapped up in liberalism and feminism, and the right to life versus the right to work.  All pro-abortion organizations are predominately made up of women.  Liberal women – women who despise the role of motherhood and the whole “a woman’s place is in the home” idea.

Women have always, throughout all of human history, been the primary care takers of children.  And feminists know that every time a woman in the work place becomes pregnant, that pregnancy, and giving birth, will take her out of the work place for a couple of years to a couple of decades while she stays home and raises the child, perhaps having more children in the years to follow.  Feminists know that once the woman leaves the work place to give birth and raise a child, the longer she remains away the less likely she will return.  Feminists also know that a woman who leaves the workplace to give birth and raise a child will likely be replaced by a man.

This, more than the money profited, more than population control, more than anything else is why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists and other “women’s rights” advocates fight to keep abortion alive.  Pure selfishness.

This Tuesday, November 8, when Mississippians will vote on whether to legally define life as that which begins at conception, thereby giving it legal protection and the right to life, the vast majority of voters who vote in favor of Proposition 26 will not be thinking about the consequences of women losing their role in the work place.  Rather, they will be thinking about the consequences of life itself and value of human life, and how much value to ascribe to human life.

What will the voters who vote against Proposition 26 be thinking about?

November 5, 2011 Posted by | abortion, politics | , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

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

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

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

Michigan passed this ban its sponsor said because it -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 27, 2011 Posted by | abortion, ACLU, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, politics, Right To LIfe | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this is of course a fallacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 21, 2011 Posted by | abortion, healthcare, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, politics, religion, Right To LIfe | , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.