Kristen Walker Hatten

The real ‘War on Women’ is a civil war

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

November 16, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - The numbers are in, and they are grim.

TIME Magazine has given us “Four Ways Women Won the 2012 Election.” They begin by exulting that Obama got 55% of the female vote; 67% of single women voted for him.

Number four on TIME‘s list is this: “Republican men with extreme views on abortion lost their elections.”

After – of course – using Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin and Richard “God Intended” Mourdock as representative examples of pro-life candidates, they went on to add:

In rebuking such candidates, “voters sent a clear message last night that they’re tired of a backwards-looking agenda that hurts women and families,” EMILY’s List president Stephanie Schriock said in a statement. The political-action committee, which supports pro-choice female candidates, reported more donors and members during the 2011-12 election cycle than at any other period in its 27-year history.

The sad, scary truth is that the majority of women – and an authoritative majority of single women – voted for Obama. Without women, he would not have been elected.

You and I know that abortion is misogyny in action. You and I know that women are not freed from oppression by simply passing on the oppression to their children. You and I know that forcing other people to buy our birth control pills is not a victory for liberty, but the opposite of that. You and I know that the abortion industry cares not about women, but about their bottom line.

Apparently, 55% of women don’t know that.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

More than half of voting women in America believed the rhetoric: that the Republican party is waging a “war on women.” That they want to take away your birth control pills and send you back to the 1950s, where you will be forced to wear a brightly-colored A-line dress and an adorable half-apron all day and greet your husband at the door with a highball for your compulsory rump-slap. In fact, a headline from the satirical news site The Onion said this the day after the election: “Nation’s Women Wake Up Relieved To Find Selves Still In 2012.”

Haha, I get it. Democrats want women to continue to be valued and respected, unlike Republicans, who want them to shut up and be pregnant. That’s funny.

Despite an abysmal economy which is affecting everyone – male and female – women voted for the status quo, based on a well-executed fantasy put forth by the Obama campaign. According to the fantasy, everyone is out to get women except the Democrats. It doesn’t matter how many successful Republican women you show them. In fact, there is no one more loathed by the women of the left than the women of the right. (If you don’t believe me, read the comments.)

Ask Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Romney, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingraham if they get a lot of “you go, girl!” from pro-choice women. You can’t even mention most of those women without eye-rolls and hearing words like “crazy” and “b**ch” – from other women. Don’t even get me started on Alveda King, Mia Love, and Condoleezza Rice – they’re black and female and conservative! Blasphemy! Condoleezza barely gets any points for being pro-choice.

The funny thing is, most people who hate, for example, Sarah Palin don’t even know why. Her voice gets on their nerves. She sounds “dumb.” She’s obviously a big liar! This is a woman who raised several children and helped her husband run a successful small business while rising from the PTA to governorship of a state. This is a woman who fought corruption in the oil and gas industry in Alaska, saving the taxpayers of her state a lot of money and busting up a deeply entrenched “good ol’ boys” club, even while she was a private citizen. Fiercely independent Alaskans of all political stripes loved her – she was a good governor, and her approval rating was in the 80s when she was tapped to run for vice president in 2008.

She became the object of immense scorn and despicable harassment: a slew of phony ethics complaints; a stalker who moved in next-door and watched her family from his balcony while he wrote a “tell-all” book about her that ended up being full of bull corn; a probe into her marriage alleging an affair which never happened; and, of course, the “lipstick on a pig” remark from the president himself.

But the most hate was a result of her very vocal pro-life position. When her teenage daughter Bristol became pregnant out of wedlock, the spittle flew as fauxminists denounced her as a “hypocrite” for promoting abstinence education when her own daughter was not abstinent. Never mind Palin’s admission that her daughter made a mistake but was going to handle it the right way: by being a good mother to her son.

There was even weird speculation that Palin’s young son, Trig, was actually her daughter’s, with people analyzing photos of her on websites to see if she was “really” pregnant. And of course there were the disgusting jokes about her son with Down Syndrome, such as Louis C.K.’s reference to her “retard-making c**t.”

This is just one example of the scorn heaped on pro-life women. Being a woman – a successful woman, a good mother, a shining example of what a woman can achieve – is not enough. You have to be pro-choice, too. If we stand up for life, we are not feminists; we are misogynists. We are a disgrace to womankind because we want to “repress” other women.

I don’t know if there is a way to explain to women that abortion is not their friend. I read RH Reality Check and Jezebel, and I feel a bit lost. I feel like these people are beyond approaching with reason, science, and logic. Sometimes I think our only choice is overturning Roe or somehow changing the law. I understand the argument that we need to end abortion one person at a time, by changing hearts and minds, but sometimes I think: no. It’s impossible.

But then I think of Christianity. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian or not. Whatever your beliefs, you must admit that the story is remarkable: against all odds, this bizarre little Eastern religion that started with twelve people spread all over the world to become the most common religion on earth. You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but there’s no denying that it happened.

As pro-life women, we have to accept that we’ll be the object of lies, disgust, and harassment. All we can do is face the lions, like the early Christians did, bravely and without apology. We can’t ever stop peacefully, lovingly declaring what we believe: all human life is precious and must be protected.

Follow us on Twitter:

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

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

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook