Kristen Walker Hatten

Hey Girl: anti-lifers use adorable Internet meme to spread lies, propaganda

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

August 21, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - Sometimes you’re minding your own business when the internet punches you in the face with WRONG. I saw a Center for Reproductive Rights graphic today that made the WRONG alarm go off in my brain. You know how you’re looking at the internet and your brain is all “politics – cat – advertisement - cat – cat - advertisement - annoying girl from high school - WRONG WRONG WRONGITY WRONG!”? It was like that.

What set off my wrong alarm is this pile of nonsense from the Center for Reproductive Rights. Now, if you are not familiar with the CRR, you really should be, because they are deeply concerned about your uterus and making sure it can get its abortion on for free for any reason. I am not speculating. I heard Nancy Northup, CRR’s president, speak to a Planned Parenthood North Texas meeting last year. I was undercover as a concerned pro-choicer, and I heard stuff that would blow your mind, and which I wrote about for Live Action. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the lawsuit against the Texas Sonogram Law, which did not quite go as they had planned.

But back to their new little marketing ploy. Let’s start from the start, shall we? It kicks off with the Ryan Gosling internet meme, the one that is all over Pinterest and very popular with the ladies, in which Ryan looks soulfully at you and says, “Hey girl, let me rub your feet while you pin.” Or something along those lines. It’s quite amusing to the 21-to-34 female demographic, which makes up exactly the uteruses Nancy Northup wants on her side. It turns out these “reproductive Ryan Goslings” are everywhere. I haven’t been able to discern yet how the real Ryan Gosling feels about it, but fake Ryan Gosling loves him some abortion.

So now she’s got Ryan Gosling, she’s got a mean Republican stepping on a lady’s head, and the media-savvy, hip young female has been hooked by her extremely memey meme. The chase is on!

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

In the e-mailed version of this graphic, CRR’s clever little multiple-choice exam starts with “Pop Quiz!” Then it asks:

Which of the following disingenuous arguments have been used to advance laws aimed at cutting off access to critical reproductive health care—while purporting to protect women’s health?

At this point, you already know their answer is going to be “all of the above,” but let’s look at each option in turn.

a)  “This bill was created to protect women. We want clinics to be properly licensed, properly insured, clean, & safe. That’s not too much to ask.” – About a Michigan law that would regulate all abortion providers out of existence.

First, the itsy-bitsy local news story this footnote links to contains no details about the bill. Second, let me tell you how I know this law doesn’t regulate abortion providers out of existence: because abortion clinics still exist in Michigan. If they didn’t, I would hear about it, because I would be invited to the celebratory “No More Abortions in Michigan!” party.

Third: God forbid we hold abortion clinics to higher standards, including proper insurance, licensure, cleanliness, and safety. I don’t know if you’ve ever been into an abortion clinic or met an abortionist, but here’s the deal: abortion clinics are gross, and abortionists are not kindly middle-aged gentlemen who resemble Alan Thicke and remember your name and hold your hand. They suck babies out of people for money, and unlike most of their victims, women and children, they are not deceived by language like “clump of cells” and “products of conception.” They know exactly what they’re doing. And they do it anyway. ‘Cause, um, cha-ching.

b)  “This is not about banning abortion in Virginia. It is simply caring for women who are about to have an invasive surgical procedure.” – About similar regulations in Virginia.

These “similar regulations” have, according to their detractors, the following sinister goal: holding abortion clinics to the same regulatory standards as hospitals. Shudder! How dare we address the issue that a clinic specializing in first-trimester abortions often is less regulated than a dental clinic? Especially when, as Planned Parenthood of Virginia argued, retrofitting clinics to abide by new rules is so darn expensive! Planned Parenthood could lose money! Excuse me while I cry myself to sleep.

c)  “The bill’s intent [is] to protect women’s health.” – About an Arizona abortion ban with only the smallest exception for dire medical emergencies.

This Arizona ban…guess what it banned. Abortion after twenty weeks’ gestation. They don’t mention that in their pithy pop quiz, do they? Why, do you think? I have a guess: because not only do most Americans not think late-term abortions are okay, but many don’t even know they’re legal.

I’ve had countless conversations with people who were shocked when I told them fetuses can be killed so late in pregnancy. Not only are the people at CRR fine with it, but they are decidedly not fine with any restrictions on aborting viable babies. While one side of this argument is concerned about fetal pain, CRR and the woebegone fauxminists are concerned that someone is limiting their across-the-board, inviolable, sacred right to abort whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want. ‘Cause this is America, and we all know our forefathers fought and died so we could have third-trimester abortions.

d)  All of the above.

I have a feeling the answer is (d)!

If you answered d) All of the above, give yourself a gold star. For too long, anti-choice extremists have been trying to disguise their attacks on women’s autonomy.

You’re onto me, Nancy Northup! For so long, I have been pretending to try to protect women from physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual harm, and their babies from untimely death, when what I really wanted was to attack women’s autonomy! I can’t help it – I hate ladies!

The claptrap goes on to say that CRR bravely stepped in to save Mississippi from being the first state in the Union with no abortion clinics, and to this I say to Nancy Northup: Hey girl, I’m soon to be a resident of Mississippi, and if I have anything to say about it, the ‘Sip is gonna be the first state in the Union with no abortion clinics. Mark my words.

We know that these laws have absolutely nothing to do with protecting women’s health.

Yeah, here’s what we know: to groups like CRR, “women’s health” is synonymous with abortion and birth control. They like to play the “mammogram” or “cancer screening” card occasionally, but that’s not what this is about. Walk into a Planned Parenthood and ask for a diabetes screening or a heart health exam and watch them stare blankly back at you. This is not about “women’s health”; it’s about abortion and birth control, both of which harm women, physically and in many other ways.

This latest meme-driven internet marketing ploy is a sad attempt on behalf of CRR to repackage the same tired drivel: that pro-lifers are waging war on women. Unfortunately for Northup and her crew, it’s simply not true. We fight every day for the health and safety of women and their children, born and unborn, and the enemy we fight is represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org

Truth. Delivered daily.

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

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

PBS defends decision to air pro-abortion documentary ‘After Tiller’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

Under pressure for showing the pro-abortion documentary "After Tiller" on Labor Day, PBS' "POV" affiliate has defended the decision in response to an inquiry from LifeSiteNews.

The producers of the film say their goal with the documentary, which tells the stories of four late-term abortion doctors after the killing of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, is to "change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety.” 

POV told LifeSiteNews, "We do believe that 'After Tiller' adds another dimension to an issue that is being debated widely." Asked if POV will show a pro-life documentary, the organization said that it "does not have any other films currently scheduled on this issue. POV received almost 1000 film submissions each year through our annual call for entries and we welcome the opportunity to consider films with a range of points of view."

When asked whether POV was concerned about alienating its viewership -- since PBS received millions in federal tax dollars in 2012 and half of Americans identify as pro-life -- POV said, "The filmmakers would like the film to add to the discussion around these issues. Abortion is already a legal procedure."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"This is an issue that people feel passionately about and will have a passionate response to. We are hopeful that the majority of people can see it for what it is, another lens on a very difficult issue." 

In addition to the documentary, POV has written materials for community leaders and teachers to share. A cursory examination of the 29-page document, which is available publicly, appears to include links to outside sources that defend Roe v. Wade, an examination of the constitutional right to privacy, and "a good explanation of the link between abortion law and the right to privacy," among other information.

Likewise, seven clips recommended for student viewing -- grades 11 and beyond -- include scenes where couples choose abortion because the children are disabled. Another shows pro-life advocates outside a doctor's child's school, and a third is described as showing "why [one of the film's doctors] chose to offer abortion services and includes descriptions of what can happen when abortion is illegal or unavailable, including stories of women who injured themselves when they tried to terminate their own pregnancies and children who were abused because they were unwanted."

Another clip "includes footage of protesters, as well as news coverage of a hearing in the Nebraska State Legislature in which abortion opponents make reference to the idea that a fetus feels pain." The clip's description fails to note that it is a scientifically proven fact that unborn children can feel pain.

The documentary is set to air on PBS at 10 p.m. Eastern on Labor Day.

Kirsten Andersen contributed to this article.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

,

He defended ‘real’ marriage, and then was beheaded for it

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

A Christian man was executed during the night by a high-profile ruler after making an uncompromising defense of real marriage.

The Christian, who was renowned for his holiness, had told the ruler in public that his relationship with his partner was “against the law” of God. The Christian’s words enraged the ruler’s partner who successfully plotted to have him permanently silenced.

John the Baptist was first imprisoned before he was beheaded. The Catholic Church honors him today, August 29, as a martyr and saint.

While John’s death happened a little less than 2,000 years ago, his heroic stance for real marriage is more pertinent today than ever before.

According to the Gospel of Mark, the ruler Herod had ‘married’ his brother’s wife Herodias. When John told Herod with complete frankness, “It is against the law for you to have your brother’s wife,” Herodias became “furious” with him to the point of wanting him killed for his intolerance, bullying, and hate-speech.

Herodias found her opportunity to silence John by having her daughter please Herod during a dance at a party. Herod offered the girl anything she wanted. The daughter turned to her mother for advice, and Herodias said to ask for John’s head on a platter.

Those who fight for real marriage today can learn three important lessons from John’s example.

  1. Those proudly living in ungodly and unnatural relationships — often referred to in today’s sociopolitical sphere as ‘marriage’ — will despise those who tell them what they are doing is wrong. Real marriage defenders must expect opposition to their message from the highest levels.
  2. Despite facing opposition, John was not afraid to defend God’s plan for marriage in the public square, even holding a secular ruler accountable to this plan. John, following the third book of the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 20:21), held that a man marrying the wife of his brother was an act of “impurity” and therefore abhorrent to God. Real marriage defenders must boldly proclaim today that God is the author of marriage, an institution he created to be a life-long union between one man and one woman from which children arise and in which they are best nurtured. Marriage can be nothing more, nothing less.
  3. John did not compromise on the truth of marriage as revealed by God, even to the point of suffering imprisonment and death for his unpopular position. Real marriage defenders must never compromise on the truth of marriage, even if the government, corporate North America, and the entire secular education system says otherwise. They must learn to recognize the new “Herodias” of today who despises those raising a voice against her lifestyle. They must stand their ground no matter what may come, no matter what the cost.

John the Baptist was not intolerant or a bigot, he simply lived the word of God without compromise, speaking the word of truth when it was needed, knowing that God’s way is always the best way. Were John alive today, he would be at the forefront of the grassroots movement opposing the social and political agenda to remake marriage in the image of man.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

If he were alive today he might speak simple but eloquent words such as, “It is against God’s law for two men or two women to be together as a husband and wife in marriage. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.” 

He would most likely be hated. He would be ridiculed. He would surely have the human rights tribunals throwing the book at him. But he would be speaking the truth and have God as his ally. 

The time may not be far off when those who defend real marriage, like John, will be presented with the choice of following Caesar or making the ultimate sacrifice. May God grant his faithful the grace to persevere in whatever might come. St. John the Baptist, pray for us!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
The Wunderlich family Mike Donnelly / Home School Legal Defence Association
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

,

German homeschoolers regain custody of children, vow to stay and fight for freedom

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

One year to the day since a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, and forcibly removed all four of the family’s children, aged 7 to 14, a state appeals court has returned custody of the children to their parents.

The reason given for the removal was that parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

The children were returned three weeks after being taken, following an international outcry spearheaded by the Home School Legal Defense Association.

However, a lower court imposed the condition on the parents that their children were required to attend state schools in order for them to be released, and took legal custody of the children in order to prevent the family from leaving the country.

In a decision that was still highly critical of the parents and of homeschooling, the appeals court decided that the action of the lower court in putting the children in the custody of the state was “disproportional” and ordered complete custody returned to the parents, according to a statement by the HSLDA.

The Wunderlichs, who began homeschooling again when the court signaled it would rule this way, said they were very pleased with the result, but noted that the court’s harsh words about homeschooling indicated that their battle was far from over.

“We have won custody and we are glad about that,” Dirk said.

“The court said that taking our children away was not proportionate—only because the authorities should apply very high fines and criminal prosecution instead. But this decision upholds the absurd idea that homeschooling is child endangerment and an abuse of parental authority.”

The Wunderlichs are now free to emigrate to another country where homeschooling is legal, if they choose, but they said they intend to remain in Germany and work for educational freedom.

“While we no longer fear that our children will be taken away as long as we are living in Hessen, it can still happen to other people in Germany,” Dirk said. “Now we fear crushing fines up to $75,000 and jail. This should not be tolerated in a civilized country.”

Petra Wunderlich said, "We could not do this without the help of HSLDA,” but cautioned that, “No family can fight the powerful German state—it is too much, too expensive."

"If it were not for HSLDA and their support, I am afraid our children would still be in state custody. We are so grateful and thank all homeschoolers who have helped us by helping HSLDA.”

HSLDA’s Director for Global Outreach, Michael Donnelly, said he welcomed the ruling but was concerned about the court’s troubling language.

“We welcome this ruling that overturns what was an outrageous abuse of judicial power,” he said.

“The lower court decision to take away legal custody of the children essentially imprisoned the Wunderlich family in Germany. But this decision does not go far enough. The court has only grudgingly given back custody and has further signaled to local authorities that they should still go after the Wunderlichs with criminal charges or fines.”

Donnelly pointed out that such behavior in a democratic country is problematic.

“Imprisonment and fines for homeschooling are outside the bounds of what free societies that respect fundamental human rights should tolerate,” he explained.

“Freedom and fundamental human rights norms demand respect for parental decision making in education. Germany’s state and national policies that permit banning home education must be changed.

"Such policies from a leading European democracy not only threaten the rights of tens of thousands of German families but establish a dangerous example that other countries may be tempted to follow,” Donnelly warned.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris said that acting on behalf of the Wunderlichs was an important stand for freedom.

“The Wunderlichs are a good and decent family whose basic human rights were violated and are still threatened,” Farris said.

“Their fight is our fight," Farris stressed, "and we will continue to support those who stand against German policy banning homeschooling that violates international legal norms. Free people cannot tolerate such oppression and we will do whatever we can to fight for families like the Wunderlichs both here in the United States and abroad. We must stand up to this kind of persecution where it occurs or we risk seeing own freedom weakened.”

Visit the HSLDA website dedicated to helping the Wunderlich family and other German homeschoolers here.

Contact the German embassy in the U.S. here.

Contact the German embassy in Canada here.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook