Kathleen Gilbert

Planned Parenthood eats mor chikin too? Well, sort of.

Kathleen Gilbert
Image

From supporting the redefinition of marriage, to spearheading universal free birth control, to pushing “sexual rights” for 10-year-olds, Planned Parenthood’s position in the culture wars is pretty unambiguous: if it involves sex, it doesn’t matter how risky or immoral it is—gosh darn it, that’s your right. (And our money supply.)

So when I came out of the Ballston Common Mall in Arlington. Va. yesterday evening, toting a hot steamy plate of fresh Chick-Fil-A strips, I pitied the Planned Parenthood canvassers I found outside; likely, I thought, they had been drowning in an endless stream of conservatives all day, with nary a soul to sign up to support their fundraiser. What’s more, they couldn’t give in to the lure of golden, deep-fried poultry as it wafted continually by.

Although canvassers are not always true believers, being often in a temporary contract with Big Abortion, I usually stop to strike up a conversation anyway. The one I met was unusually assertive: she told me that she too was “pro-life,” but she was also a Christian and “pro-choice,” because “God gave me the gift of choice and ain’t nobody going to tell me what to do with it.” Well, I said, free choice is a wonderful thing - although I wasn’t convinced that meant choosing to murder babies is a good idea. But anyway.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

She, knowing the method of the day’s Chick-Fil-A madness, then commented about my purchase with a derogatory wave of her hand. (I, who almost never eat sugar, was at the time holding two obnoxiously sweet-looking milkshakes, peach and chocolate - whipped cream and cherry on top and all. If ever I was to temporarily destroy my health, I figured, I would do it for a good cause. No holds barred.)

“You’re right, it’s pretty unhealthy, isn’t it?” I said with a shrug. “Just taking one for the team I guess.” Then something strange happened. Without skipping a beat, not four seconds after deriding my sodium and sugar-laden treasure, she asked, “Can I have some?”

“Why, sure! Here, have some sauce, too.” I waved the other canvasser over to join in, and they both loaded up. Quite a few pieces too.

As they navigated their new chickeny bliss, I thought to myself: you take my chicken, you get to listen to me proselytize one more time. “Free choice is a beautiful gift,” I said as I walked away. “Just choose life. Don’t choose murder. Choose life.” I doubt they were paying attention. But who knows - perhaps the God of Chick-Fil-A accepts chicken strips as a sacramental form of prayer for these two women.


Advertisement

, , ,

Media blackout: Reporter says HHS mandate ‘just a weird idea I don’t think anyone’s talking about’

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert

A Daily Beast reporter who sat down with a religious conservative at the Republican National Convention last month gave us all a peek at just how effective the media blackout on the HHS mandate has been.

In a live broadcast, the interviewer asked businessman Foster Friess what the deal was with conservatives’ “obsessive dislike” of President Obama. Friess’ top answer, of course, was the fact that the administration has forced virtually all religious employers across the country to cough up coverage for free birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacient drugs under threat of severe fines.

“That’s just a weird idea that I don’t think anyone’s talking about,” was the reporter’s bewildered response.

Apparently the 125,000+ citizens pouring onto the streets of 160 American cities last spring and summer didn’t make an impression: aside from an NPR article, mainstream media coverage of the events was basically nonexistent. A third rally has been set for Oct 20.

Friess tried to explain the seriousness of the problem by likening the mandate to forcing a Jewish deli to carry pork. “It’s an issue of freedom. Should that decision be made between employer and employee, or should it be a government edict?” said the businessman.

Unfortunately, the communication rift between persons of faith and the religiously disinclined can be rather difficult: Friess didn’t appear to make a dent.

One only hopes that the court fight of Christian arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby, fending off a $1.3 million-per-day fine, will force a chink into mainstream coverage, illuminating the vast discontent plainly visible on countless bulletin boards - not to mention voices and furrowed brows - in parishes and churches across the nation.

But that may be hoping too much.


Advertisement

‘Ugly black babies’ abortionist an avid Democrat donor

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert
Image

In a development sure to provide a headache for Democrat leaders, it has been revealed that the North Carolina abortionist caught on video explaining how his practice aborting “ugly black babies” is a boon to taxpayers is a regular blue donor.

“I don’t wish to pay for the baby with my money,” Ashutosh Ron Virmani told pro-life activists with Operation Save America in remarks caught on video and published July 30. “Go ahead and pay for them. Let me see you go ahead and adopt one of those ugly black babies.”

The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney on Tuesday noted Virmani’s political leanings are well-established.

Records show the Charlotte-based Virmani has given several donations since 2000 to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as $1,000 to John Kerry in 2004 and $250 to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Barack Obama does not appear on the list.

Historically, Democrats have an embarrassing record on civil rights: the party opposed civil rights for African Americans, including uniform opposition in Congress to the 14th amendment granting blacks civil rights. The party is also the sole founding party of the Ku Klux Klan: the 1915 Klan propaganda film The Birth of a Nation was described by its director as intended “to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!”

In September of last year, black pastor and civil rights activist Rev. Wayne Perryman filed a lawsuit against President Obama and the DNC in U.S. District Court for its history of racism against blacks, which he notes has never elicited an apology.

“Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit,” said Perryman. The activist said he was “convinced that Democrats will only apologize if the media, or the courts (with public pressure) will force them to do so.”

“The man who authored the book: The Audacity of Hope, now has the ‘audacity’ to refuse to apologize for his political party and their racist institutions, that took the lives of millions of his own people,” he said.


Advertisement

Should women taking the pill pay $1,500 more in taxes?

Kathleen Gilbert
Kathleen Gilbert
Image

...Given the severe environmental effects of hormones from the pill ending up in our water supply, one Forbes writer thinks so, based on the costs of upgrading and operating sewage treatment facilities to remove the hormones:

[T]he proposal is that sewage treatment systems should be upgraded to deal with this. ...

Look purely at the running costs of such a system, some 10% of the capital cost. That’s £3 billion a year for England and Wales, and in that country there are some 2.5 million women using the pill. That looks a little low to me so just to make the math easier we’ll say 3 million. Or the running costs alone of such a system will be £1,000 ($1,500) a year for each and every women who uses the pill to regulate her fertility.

As for having the pharmaceutical manufacturer foot the bill, Worstall calls it “near insane” to think Big Pharma would countenance such a financial burden on the pill. After all, “given that the pill is free” in the UK, as will be the case soon in the US, the sewage bill would “just [mean] that the taxpayer is going to pay.”

But we already have a cultural climate that dictates who should pay for such measures: the polluter.

BP has to pay to clean up the waters of the Gulf after Macondo: we all think this is just and righteous. ... Which brings us to: well, it is women taking the contraceptive pill who are causing this pollution. ... This really is pollution and yes, we do have this general assumption that the polluter should pay for having polluted.

We cannot charge BP for killing fishies through pollution if we don’t also charge others who kill fishies through pollution, can we?

Worstall concludes that contraception isn’t bad in itself, but “there are a number of alternative methods, various barriers, creams, sponges, IUDs, which do not carry this environmental cost,” that women should pursue.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook