Kristen Walker Hatten

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

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten

August 21, 2012 ( - 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

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley /
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook