Kristen Walker Hatten

Opinion

The real ‘War on Women’ is a civil war

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



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
A photo of Kim Tucci at 25 weeks gestation Erin Elizabeth Photography
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News,

‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
Image
An ultrasound of the five different compartments, each with its own baby, inside Kim's womb.

AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life. 

“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September. 

“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote. 

Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds. 

The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again. 

After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test. 

“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.

The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five. 

“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”

“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.

Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.” 

“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”

“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.” 

“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.” 

“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born. 

The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well. 



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

News

UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads. 

The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution. 

“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters. 

UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.

“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.

But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it. 

The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”

Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.

“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said. 

While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms. 

“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added. 

Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born. 

“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.

“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
JStone / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News,

Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.

"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.

There have been over 58,000,000 abortions since the 1973 court ruling legalizing abortion in all 50 states, according to National Right to Life.

That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.

“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."

Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.

All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.

On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.

At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.

But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook