John Jalsevac

MSNBC host: ‘Girls, get your abortions NOW in case the Republicans win’

John Jalsevac

Abortion activists like to say that abortion is a “tragedy” and that it should be safe, legal and “rare.” But sometimes they drop the pretense, and reveal their full extremism, such as when the Democratic party writes a platform that supports taxpayer funded abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy (sadly, this is a true story).

Or when they joke about how women should got out and get abortions right away, just in case the Republicans win the upcoming election.

The latter is the approach MSNBC’s “The Cycle” co-host Touré took this morning when he re-tweeted a tweet that said, “Girls, get your abortions NOW in case the Republicans win”

And to add that extra little bit of “oomph,” he signaled his enthusiastic endorsement of the sentiment, writing, “This!!!!” in front of the tweet.

The tweet has provoked some head-scratching in the conservative blogosphere.

Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online reacted, saying: “This is a long way from ‘safe, legal, and rare.’ This is an enthusiasm for radicalism. This is a sick culture where life itself has lost its value.”

A post on Red Alert Politics said, “they are using children, and pushing the killing of them, in order to scare women from leaving the Democrat plantation. Economy, shmonomy! ‘Girls’ should only care about their fancy wombs and should despicably believe that their rights are solely predicated on the legal ability to abort their unborn children.”

Over at Hot Air Howard Portnoy writes: “So is his advice in the tweet noted above, which assigns to the act of aborting a fetus the same gravity as remembering to take advantage of a sale on shoes while the chance remains. Even the staunchest pro-choice supporter should be appalled at the matter-of-factness of the suggestion.”

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:

Share this article

Featured Image
A topless activist with Femen attacks Belgian Archbishop Andrè-Joseph Leonard, who is known for his strong pro-life and pro-family stance.

Why are pro-abortion protesters always taking their clothes off?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

I’ve seen a lot of bizarre responses to pro-life activism. There’s the crude picket signs, the illiterate chants, the flashes of violence, the incoherent threats that so often seem to involve used tampons, and even activists dressed up like giant genitalia.

But there is one phenomenon that never ceases to stagger me with its counterproductive stupidity and moral blindness: The increasing prevalence of “feminist” protestors, almost exclusively women, stripping down to “protest” something—usually protection for the pre-born or some other dissent from the totalitarian death cult of the Sexual Revolution.

When people ask me what the weirdest response to pro-life work is and I try to explain this phenomenon, they find it hard to believe. So do I. But yet it happens, time and time again.

The suicidal tendencies of modern-day feminism would be almost laughable if they were not so depressing.

One student stripped down and sat on a folding chair in front of our pro-life display at the University of British Columbia. A few protestors decided to protest the launch of our 2012 national tour by going topless. Then, at a presentation in London, Ontario, a bunch of pro-abortion protesters showed up at a counter-protest organized by the Canadian Auto Worker’s Union, sans clothing. And of course, at last year’s March for Life a topless Femen protestor flung herself at a remarkably composed Catholic bishop as he spoke to the crowd, shrieking “F*** your morals!”

You’d think such behaviour would attract ire rather than admiration. But this is 2014 and most of our municipal governments use our taxpayer’s cash basically to fund a day dedicated to that type of behaviour when the Pride Parade rolls around.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Instead, these women are now generally referred to as “brave.” Even the popular, but tiresomely far-left website Upworthy recently pushed a video with a street activist protesting harassment by misogynist pigs by standing on the street in her lingerie. (Little tip: Protesting the fact that some misogynists define you by your body by voluntarily showing them what they wanted to see in the first place isn't defiance, it's acquiescence. Protesting the fact that these guys aren't treating you with dignity by acting like you have none is counter-productive. “That guy crudely suggested he wants to see me naked! Well, I’ll show him! By showing him exactly what he wants to see! Wait…”)

A bit of research into the infamous nude activist group Femen (“Our mission is protest, our weapon is bare breasts”) shows just how exploitative (inadvertent though it may sometimes be) this entire phenomenon is. In recent documentary the group’s leader, Viktor Svyatski, admitted that he had perhaps started the group to “get girls,” and that he carefully selected only the most attractive girls for his group. The documentary also revealed that Svyatski had described the Femen girls as “weak,” and was often verbally abusive with them.

Again, the suicidal tendencies of modern-day feminism would be almost laughable if they were not so depressing.

But the phenomenon of public nudity is also more than just incoherent protest—it is a way of forcing people to accept any and all manifestations of the Sexual Revolution. As I noted some time ago:  The public is now regularly subjected to crude and wildly exhibitionist “Gay Pride Parades” and “Slut Walks.” These are not considered to be optional festivals hosted by tiny minority groups. No, politicians who refuse to attend are labelled as heretics by the high priests of the New Moral Order, which is of course not an order at all, but a proud lack thereof.

Liberal activists don’t want the State to be outside the bedroom anymore, they want the State in the bedroom—loudly applauding the acts they see taking place, refraining from any judgment but one of approval, and paying for pills and bits of rubber to ensure that such acts do not go awry and result in reproduction or infection.

Your prayers are not welcome in public, but your privates are. The Emperor has no clothes, and is quite enjoying it—so long as the chilly breezes of moral truth don’t leak out of drafty cathedrals to cause discomfort.  

There may be hope on the horizon, as indicated by the wild popularity of such books as Wendy ShaIit’s A Return to Modesty, as well as increasing disinterest in topless beaches in places like France. Some “feminists” have responded to such trends with irritation, grumbling that all the hard-won ground they had fought for is being spurned by the ungrateful brats of today. But perhaps, instead, many women are realizing that allowing men to freely objectify them in public is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Perhaps people have begun to rediscover a human value that was once enormously prized, but now almost forgotten: Dignity.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Featured Image

Planned Parenthood thinks pro-life counselors are the embodiment of evil: here’s their latest absurd reason why

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Last June 26, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts bubble zone law requiring sidewalk counselors to stand at least 35 feet away from the entrance of any abortion facility in McCullen v. Coakley. The city of Burlington, Vermont, rescinded its 35-foot city ordinance the next week. The abortion industry has tried to come up with new laws to silence pro-life sidewalk counselors ever since.

There's just one problem: There's no evidence that the laws “protect” anything except abortion facilities' profits. Thus, pro-abortion activists are trying desperately to gin up something, anything, to keep pro-life people away from their clients. The Vermont-based newspaper Seven Days reports:

Planned Parenthood has also been collecting evidence attempting to show that, without the protection of a buffer, patients have been intimidated and harassed. According to its medical director, Donna Burkett, some patients come in with elevated blood pressure and other physical symptoms brought on by the stress.

Because pregnant women never have high blood pressure on their own! Actually, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, “High blood pressure problems occur in 6 percent to 8 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S., about 70 percent of which are first-time pregnancies. In 1998, more than 146,320 cases of preeclampsia alone were diagnosed.”

Perhaps recognizing this claim's innate fragility, they have outlined a few instances of outrageous pro-life behavior. Here's how Jill Krowinski of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England described the alleged harassment of the vicious rosary-bearers:

On July 30, "There were four protesters today chatting with each other and praying out loud. They had signs they held and large signs on their cars. One woman entering the health center complained about the protesters, saying that they are so loud, they make people not want to come here."

Of course, that “one woman” could have been the director or an employee.

Another outrage took place on July 19, when “[t]here were up to 10 protesters (including a baby) picketing and praying loudly. They were parked right outside the clinic with signs on their cars.” They parked right outside the facility? On a public street? The nerve.

Is that really the best you can muster? People praying and displaying signs?

Well, Planned Parenthood Volunteer Coordinator Paige Feeser said, “I had one protester come right up to my face and hand me a flyer showing how Susan B. Anthony would not approve of the decision of women getting abortions."

"I would definitely say the Susan B. Anthony [incident] was one of the hardest things I had to witness," she added.

The action she detests – the distribution of literature and handbills – is the most fundamental action the Bill of Rights was written to protect.

It's almost as if the First Amendment itself offends the abortion industry, that they see uttering anything other than the Planned Parenthood party line as a direct threat.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The Supreme Court cited the lack of any actual threat in its ruling striking down the Massachusetts law. Captain William B. Evans of the Boston Police Department, the justices wrote, “testified that his officers had made 'no more than five or so arrests' at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Boston” under a 2000 law establishing a bubble zone, “and that what few prosecutions had been brought were unsuccessful.” The state could “identify not a single prosecution brought under those laws within at least the last 17 years.”

The justices ruled unanimously that sidewalk counselors only engage in “personal, caring, consensual conversations” with pregnant women.

That has not prevented the abortion industry and its media myrmidons from castigating people engaged in peaceful prayer outside abortionists' offices as the embodiment of all evil. In February, Cosmopolitan magazine published an article entitled, “6 Women on Their Terrifying, Infuriating Encounters With Abortion Clinic Protesters” that provided no evidence for any of the stories contained in it.

The Huffington Post likewise repeated Mississippi abortion escort Michelle Colon's claims that pro-lifers are "racist,” although her testimony did not bear out such a conclusion.

Then there is the never-ending campaign to demonize crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) as horrid profit centers that lie to women, although one such “exposé” cited zero falsehoods.

The abortion industry, and the Left generally, knows only one method to respond to any other viewpoint: legal suppression. And apparently no argument is too ridiculous to bolster that effort.

Featured Image
Police officers refused to investigate the pleas of girls as young as 11, who were considered to be “promiscuous” participants in “consensual” sex.

1,400 British girls were gang-raped for years thanks to the sexual revolution

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Much has been written about the horrifying tale of 1,400 British girls who were groomed, brutalized, and viciously gang-raped for years by Muslim sexual traffickers. (The details are here.) This human slavery took place in the city of Rotherham alone for 16 years, despite the knowledge of government officials, for several reasons: The Islamic view that unveiled women, and especially non-Muslim girls, are promiscuous and invite rape by being in public without a burqa; the socioeconomic class and status of the victims; and police and government officials' paralyzing fear of being called “racists” allowed girls as young as 11 to be serially raped by packs of strangers. Their abusers would beat them, hold them at gunpoint, even threaten to set them on fire.

But one element has been missing in the discussion: The role the sexual revolution played in helping spineless police and government officials look the other way and blame the victim.

Beginning with the work of Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the sexual revolution taught a generation of Westerners that “children are sexual beings.” Since young people want to indulge in sex just as much as adults, Kinsey and his disciples taught, their becoming involved in sexual activity is natural.

That theory seems to have animated the police response to reports that girls between the ages of 11 into their late teens were being sexually exploited by gangs of “Asian” Muslims. A 153-page report from Professor Alexis Jay, released last month, details the extent of modern slavery in this South Yorkshire city alone and how police looked the other way.

“The young women concerned were often seen by the Police as being deviant or promiscuous,” Professor Jay writes, concerning girls in the fifth and sixth grades. “The adult men with whom they were found were not questioned.”

The London Telegraph reports precisely how the new morality helped the Pakistanis pimp the prepubescent:

In one of the most staggering passages in the report, Professor Jay revealed how a police officer dismissed the case of a 12-year-old girl who had been having sex with up to five Asian males, because he said she had been “100 percent consensual in every incident.”

Indeed, the police counseled parents to lighten up and accept their children's abuse as a rite of passage:

The report also described how social workers and council chiefs were quick to dismiss the concerns of parents who were attempting to protect their children.

In one case in 2002 a mother contacted social services to voice concerns that her 14-year-old daughter was going missing regularly and was being plied with drink by older males.

Her mother said she was worried that her daughter had become sexually active with members of the group.

But despite showing signs that she had been sexually exploited from the age of 11, the case was closed and the social worker’s assessment was that the mother was unable to accept the fact that her daughter was growing up.

Assessing the problem, and how police could have helped rectify it, the Telegraph summarizes Jay's report:

Police on the ground had a “lack of understanding” of the problem and regarded children as young as 11 as being in consensual sexual relationships with adults rather than being victims of rape and abuse.

Too often victims of abuse were regarded as “undesirables” who were “not worthy of police protection,” and missing persons reports were regarded as “a waste of time.” Some young women were even threatened with arrest for wasting police time when they sought help.

In fact, in some cases the victims were arrested while the perpetrators were allowed to remain free.

Formally, the governments of the world still understand that police and social workers should have seen the girls' behavior as a blazing red flag. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website notes that “sexual promiscuity among girls” is a common indicator of sexual abuse.

But the sex industry works to normalize promiscuity at ever-younger ages. This is true whether it is hardcore pornography, the porn-lite of Cosmo and Glamour magazines, the scientifically inaccurate sex advice dispensed by Planned Parenthood, or the anti-morality thought police at the Huffington Post and Slate who seek to punish anyone who expresses the idea that it might be prudent to limit sexual activity in any way, shape, or form.

That is one of the gravest ironies of the sexual revolution. The loosened moral strictures were supposed to make young people less hypocritical, and more open, honest, and free to express themselves emotionally and physically. In practice, it has enslaved people through addiction to pornography, loveless hook-ups, dead-end relationships with future deadbeat dads, single-motherhood, a childhood being raised in fragile and fractious homes that provide no hint of stability.

And they convince police that child sexual predators are showing children a good time – that fundamentally, there is no difference between dehumanizing mass assault and puppy love.

Click "like" if you say NO to porn!

These 1,400 girls – who are believed to be the tip of the iceberg of Islamic sex trafficking in Great Britain – were victimized by hostile elements who believed they had a religious justification for their actions, police who believed they had a PC excuse for their inaction, and the cultural elites promoting sexual immorality whose greatest accomplishment has been to eradicate the innocence and physical safety of a generation. 

Cross-posted at

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook