OpinionFri Nov 16, 2012 - 10:15 am EST
The real ‘War on Women’ is a civil war
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.
Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Pro-life group asks: Pray for abortionists who sell baby body parts
February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - This Lent, a pro-life group would like you to pray for an abortionist - specifically, an abortionist who facilitates the sale of unborn babies' body parts.
The Pro-Life Action League is asking for people to pray for three people in particular throughout the 40 days of Lent. All three were caught on video by the Center for Medical Progress.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola appeared in the first video released last July, sipping red wine and stabbing her salad as she discussed the dismemberment of aborted children, including where to “crush” their bodies for a "less crunchy" technique.
The second is Dr. Mary Gatter, who appeared in the second undercover video, haggling over the prices Planned Parenthood expected to receive for the aborted children's organs and tissue. At one point, she joked that she wants the revenue to pay for “a Lamborghini.”
And the third is Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was also caught in the first video praising Dr. Nucatola.
Despite the shocking evidence uncovered by CMP, Richards has insisted her organization did not receive any profit for what she dubs its "fetal tissue donation program." She apologized only for Dr. Nucatola's "tone." She has since said that Planned Parenthood will not receive any remuneration for babies' body parts.
"These three architects of Planned Parenthood’s baby parts scheme have devoted their lives to the destruction and exploitation of human life in the name of ‘choice,’" said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "If we won’t pray for them, who will?”
He asked Christians to pray for these three abortion industry profiteers - and for Richards, who is a post-abortive woman - in order to fulfill Jesus Christ's commandment in the Bible, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (St. Matthew 5:44).
“In God’s eyes, what abortion has done to these three women may be worse than what they’ve done to unborn children, who now rest in our Lord’s loving arms," Scheidler said.
For most Catholics, Lent began yesterday on Ash Wednesday, and lasts 40 days.
Texas AG faces ethics probe for defending conscience rights of natural marriage supporters
AUSTIN, Texas, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The attorney general of the state of Texas is facing an ethics investigation for having affirmed the constitutional religious freedom of state workers to decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it goes against their religious beliefs.
Attorney General Ken Paxton took steps to address the issue of conscience protection in his state before and after last June's Supreme Court's Obergefell decision imposing same-sex "marriage" on all 50 states, first issuing a statement the day prior clarifying that Texas law recognizes the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and recommending that state officials wait for direction from his office should the High Court move to redefine marriage.
Paxton then issued a statement two days after the ruling, his office allowing county clerks and their employees to retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and said as well that justices of the peace and judges would similarly retain religious freedoms.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
A month later, a group of some 200 attorneys filed a complaint asserting that Paxton's position encouraged officials to violate the U.S. Constitution and break their oaths of office, according to ABC News.
The complaint was dismissed at first by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, but it was reinstated February 2 by a state Supreme Court-appointed appeals board, which contended that the complaint alleges a "possible violation" of professional conduct rules.
The appeals board decision to reinstate the case does not mean Paxton violated professional ethics, according to the ABC report, but does require him to respond to the complaint in conjunction with the investigation.
"The complaint has always lacked merit," said Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer, "and we are confident the legal process for resolving these complaints will bear that out."
Paxton was among several state officials across the U.S. who moved to ensure conscience protection in the immediate aftermath the Obergefell ruling, at times garnering the ire of homosexual activists.
Last July, South Dakota's attorney general granted permission to county clerks with conscientious objections to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as another clerk in the office would issue the license.
In a highly contentious case, Davis had asked for a religious accommodation allowing her office to issue altered licenses to homosexuals without her name on them, which was eventually granted by Kentucky's Governor Matt Bevin. However, the ACLU sued, seeking to force Davis to issue the old forms with her full name on them. A federal judge rejected the suit earlier this week.
Last year, homosexual activists sent harassing messages, including threats of violence, to Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk and his family after the Republican legislator sponsored a bill that would have given the state's business owners the freedom to follow their religious convictions in regard to homosexual "marriage."
Paxton faces penalties varying between a reprimand and disbarment resulting from the ethics complaint. The Texas attorney general is also facing securities fraud charges.
This pro-abortion billionaire may run for president
NEW YORK, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - He's an upwardly mobile, socially liberal billionaire whose political affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He's teased numerous presidential campaigns in the past, but this time he's talking like he's serious. And no, he's not who you think he is.
Michael Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor of New York City, has confirmed to media sources that he is considering running for president as an independent in 2016.
Bloomberg told told the Financial Times this week that he finds American political "discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," and that he's “looking at all the options."
The 73-year-old tycoon was a registered Democrat before switching parties to run in the less contested Republican primary in 2001. He became a registered independent in 2007.
As mayor, Bloomberg governed as a social liberal who strongly supported abortion and the LGBT political agenda.
In 2011, Bloomberg signed a controversial gag order directed at crisis pregnancy centers. A year later, he endorsed Barack Obama's re-election, saying that abortion-on-demand is part of "the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there."
That's the same year Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $50 million undertaking to expand "reproductive health," including a major partnership with Planned Parenthood-Global to overturn pro-life laws in four nations: Nicaragua, Sengal, Uganda, and Burkina Faso.
Mayor Bloomberg played a pivotal role redefining marriage in New York state, giving the four Republican state senators who voted for New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law. One retired and a second lost his primary fight.
His strong emphasis on health regulations, such as attempting to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, did little to enhance his popularity and were deftly parodied by Sarah Palin. (A state court struck down the proposed regulation.)
The financial heft he could bring into the race, as well as his quirky politics, has tempted Bloomberg to enter presidential politics in the past. He considered a presidential run in 2008 and thought more strongly about a third party bid in 2012, after hosting the inaugural convention of the “No Labels” movement in New York City in 2010, but he backed off each time after not seeing a viable path to victory.
With an estimated fortune of $39 billion, he has said he would be willing to spend more than $1 billion on his campaign in 2016 - but he would only enter the race if the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders.
He called Jeb and Hillary Clinton "two quality” candidates and "the only two who know how to make the trains run." Jeb reciprocated last month, telling CNN that Bloomberg is "a good person, and he’s a patriot and wants the best for the country.”
At least one of his competitors is eager to see Mike run. "I hope he gets into the race," Donald Trump told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Wednesday night. "I'd love to compete against him...I would love to see Michael in the race."
That is likely because polling shows Bloomberg would draw most of his support from the Democratic candidate. "Although he is characterized as the New York counterpunch to Trump, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is more the nemesis of Bernie than he is of Donald," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Bernie Sanders would defeat both Trump and Cruz in a head-to-head match, according to Quinnipiac. But if Bloomberg entered the race, he would win 15 percent of the vote largely from Sanders, giving Trump a one-point victory in the popular vote (and narrowing Cruz's loss to one point).
However, he could throw a major wrench in the Democrats' electoral college total, according to columnist Pat Buchanan.
"Not only would Bloomberg lose the Big Apple, his statewide vote would come mostly from the Democratic nominee, giving Republicans the best opportunity to carry the Empire State since Ronald Reagan coasted to re-election in 1984," wrote Buchanan, who served as White House communications director during Reagan's second term.
“It’s not beyond imagining that he could get in and have an effect on the race,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, told The Hill.
Perhaps sensing this, numerous Democrats - including Senators Claire McCaskill and Jeanne Shaheen - have thrown cold water on a Bloomberg presidential run.
Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, said this week that an independent Bloomberg candidacy "won't be necessary" - because the Democrats already represent social liberals.
"I really think when he takes a good hard look, he will conclude that the issues that are important to him...[have] a natural home among our Democratic candidates," she said. "And so, I think Michael Bloomberg's agenda is well cared-for and advanced among our Democratic candidates, and his candidacy, I think he will find, won't be necessary.""
His entrance into the race would be a true injection of "New York values" - making him the third or fourth New Yorker in the race - alongside fellow billionaire Trump from Queens, the Brooklyn-born Sanders, and onetime New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Annie Linskey, a reporter for the Boston Globe who once worked for Bloomberg, told Fox News on Monday that there is "about a four" percent chance that Bloomberg will run.