Kristen Walker Hatten

Your Daily Outrage: Hollywood, CRR join evil forces (and I call Planned Parenthood)

Kristen Walker Hatten
By Kristen Walker Hatten

October 12, 2012 ( - Hollywood is, for me, a treasure trove of outrage. So is the Center for Reproductive Rights. I consider CRR’s president Nancy Northup sort of an arch-nemesis, because I have looked upon her face and heard her insane ideas firsthand. Her ideas basically boil down to free abortion on demand for everyone, everywhere, for any reason. She’s pretty dark, you guys. If I were an unborn baby, I would think of her kind of the way Luke Skywalker thinks of Emperor Palpatine.

CRR’s new campaign, “Draw the Line,” is being supported vocally by many who are experts on our health care system, the United States economy, and constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty.

Haha, I was just kidding! It’s being supported by celebrities.

Oh, celebrities! What would we do without you? I’m so glad we have Kevin Bacon and Lisa Kudrow to explain 2,000 pages of controversial legislation to us. How could we possibly form an opinion about total government takeover of health care without Amy Poehler’s input? Please, Meryl Streep and Tea Leoni, share your wisdom with us! Sarah Silverman, use your in-depth understanding of our founding documents to shed light on this complex subject!

You see, CRR wants “unrestricted access” to a wide range of “reproductive health services.” As such, CRR’s people are big supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, and super-bummed about how often it’s been attacked in the courts. They see these legal challenges as threats to the rights of women everywhere.

From Christian Post:

“Every day, the opponents of our fundamental reproductive rights are passing laws designed to take those rights away,” Streep said in a promotional video for the campaign. “They’re shutting down doctors and clinics across the nation.  They’re making it nearly impossible for millions of women to get the essential healthcare they need.”

Please do not forget: when pro-aborts talk about “essential health care,” they mean exactly the opposite of essential health care. They mean abortions and artificial birth control.

But hold on, because this is my absolute favorite part. I discovered this via the “progressive” website Common Dreams, and they think this is awesome: the crux of CRR’s “Draw the Line” campaign is asking Americans – get ready for this – to sign a Bill of Reproductive Rights.

You heard that right. They are ignoring the actual Bill of Rights – you know, the real one! – and creating their own imaginary one to which they shall be ever loyal.

Let’s play a game! It’s called Which Bill of Rights Is It In? Here’s how it works: I’ll give you an excerpt, and you tell me if it’s from the real United States Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Reproductive Rights! Ready? Here we go:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

Okay, which one is it? If you guessed the real Bill of Rights, you’re right! See that part about “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? The Affordable Care Act does exactly that: it forces religious employers to cover contraception and sterilization even if doing so is against their religious beliefs.

Alright, here’s another excerpt! Which Bill of Rights Is It In?

We the people of the United States hereby assert the following as fundamental human rights that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all … The right to a full range of safe, affordable, and readily accessible reproductive health care—including pregnancy care, preventive services, contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment …

Sometimes when I lie awake at night, I imagine a land where I can invent my own rights, that no government may deny. I would have the right to eat pizza all day without gaining any weight. I would also be able to fly and read minds.

In the Imaginationland created by CRR and lovingly supported by not-super-famous celebs who could sure use the publicity, the real Bill of Rights means nothing, but the Bill of Imaginary Rights is one “that no government may deny, and that our governments at every level must guarantee and safeguard for all.” To hell with religious rights! Who cares about those? Those are for dumb creepy people who live in the South. No, what we really need is abortions. Abortions, birth control pills, and sterilizations.

Note how they throw in pregnancy care. They added that to sound more baby-friendly and less death-obsessed, but if they gave one crap about prenatal care, Planned Parenthood might provide it. Oh wait, I’m sorry, 7.8% of them do! As opposed to the 40% that provide abortions. So it’s obviously a super-important service to them.

If pregnancy care were an essential ”human right” to CRR and their ilk, wouldn’t you expect someone to be screaming that Planned Parenthood needs to provide more of it?

Because I want to make sure I am giving you good information, I called a Planned Parenthood clinic in Garland, Texas and told them I was pregnant and wanted to keep the baby, and asked if they provided prenatal care. I was told that no PP clinics in Texas provide this.

So I decided to try the land of Lala, the city from which all these celebrities are supporting the “Draw the Line” campaign – Los Angeles. I was told that no clinics in the county provide prenatal care, but I could call clinics in outlying areas directly.

And in case you were wondering – I was very polite.

Those are two major locations – all of Texas and all of the sprawling, heavily populated Los Angeles area. What do you think would be the outcry if no Planned Parenthoods in those areas provided abortions?

I’m a fan of intellectual honesty. In the interest of same, I think “Draw the Line” should be renamed “Campaign for Empty Wombs.” That’s what it’s really about. It’s not about caring for women and children, but about making sure women can abort said children for any reason, to be paid for by “the government,” which is to say: me and you. It’s a campaign for the tyranny of a woman over her unborn child, and a commitment to being so condescending to women that they don’t dare tell them: Hey, oppressing your children will not make you less oppressed.

In case you’re keeping track of whom to boycott, here is a partial list of “Draw the Line” supporters. Fair warning: you will have to Google most of these people. Kevin Bacon, Sandra Bernhard, Billy Crudup, Olympia Dukakis, Jenna Fischer, Caroline Kennedy, Lisa Kudrow, Tea Leoni, Audra McDonald, Oliver Platt, Martha Plimpton, Amy Poehler, Kyra Sedgwick, Sarah Silverman, Meryl Streep, Louis Zorich.

Reprinted with permission from

Share this article

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve

Today’s chuckle: Rubio, Fiorina and Carson pardon a Thanksgiving turkey

Steve Jalsevac Steve Jalsevac Follow Steve
By Steve Jalsevac

A little bit of humour now and then is a good thing.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American readers.

Share this article

Featured Image
Building of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lianne Laurence


BREAKING: Europe’s top human rights court slaps down German ban on pro-life leafletting

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

STRASBOURG, France, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that a German regional court violated a pro-life activist’s freedom of expression when it barred him from leafleting in front of an abortion center.

It further ruled the German court’s order that Klaus Gunter Annen not list the names of two abortion doctors on his website likewise violated the 64-year-old pro-life advocate’s right to freedom of expression.

The court’s November 26 decision is “a real moral victory,” says Gregor Puppinck, director of the Strasbourg-based European Center for Law and Justice, which intervened in Annen’s case. “It really upholds the freedom of speech for pro-life activists in Europe.”

Annen, a father of two from Weinam, a mid-sized city in the Rhine-Neckar triangle, has appealed to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights at least two times before, Puppinck told LifeSiteNews.

“This is the first time he made it,” he said, noting that this time around, Annen had support from the ECLJ and Alliance Defense Fund and the German Pro-life Federation (BVL). “I think he got more support, better arguments and so I think this helped.”

The court also ordered the German government to pay Annen costs of 13,696.87 EUR, or 14,530 USD.

Annen started distributing pamphlets outside a German abortion center ten years ago, ECLJ stated in a press release.

His leaflets contained the names and addresses of the two abortionists at the center, declared they were doing “unlawful abortions,” and stated in smaller print that, “the abortions were allowed by the German legislators and were not subject to criminal liability.”

Annen’s leaflets also stated that, “The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” They referred to Annen’s website,, which listed a number of abortionists, including the two at the site he was leafleting.

In 2007, a German regional court barred Annen from pamphleteering in the vicinity of the abortion center, and ordered him to drop the name of the two abortion doctors from his website.

But the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday that the German courts had "failed to strike a fair balance between [Annen’s] right to freedom of expression and the doctor’s personality rights.”

The Court stated that, “there can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”

That means, stated ECLJ, that “freedom of expression in regard to abortion shall enjoy a full protection.”

ECLJ stated that the court noted Annen’s leaflets “made clear that the abortions performed in the clinic were not subject to criminal liability. Therefore, the statement that ‘unlawful abortions’ were being performed in the clinic was correct from a legal point of view.”

As for the Holocaust reference, the court stated that, “the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust.”  Rather, the reference was “a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law might diverge from morality.”

The November 26 decision “is a quite good level of protection of freedom of speech for pro-life people,” observed Puppinck.

First, the European Court of Human Rights has permitted leafleting “in the direct proximate vicinity of the clinic, so there is no issue of zoning,” he told LifeSiteNews. “And second, the leaflets were mentioning the names of the doctors, and moreover, were mentioning the issue of the Holocaust, which made them quite strong leaflets.”

“And the court protected that.”

Annen has persevered in his pro-life awareness campaign through the years despite the restraints on his freedom.

“He did continue, and he did adapt,” Puppinck told LifeSiteNews. “He kept his freedom of speech as much as he could, but he continued to be sanctioned by the German authorities, and each time he went to the court of human rights. And this time, he won.”

ECLJ’s statement notes that “any party” has three months to appeal the November 26 decision.

However, as it stands, the European Court of Human Rights’s ruling affects “all the national courts,” noted Puppinck, and these will now “have to protect freedom of speech, recognize the freedom of speech for pro-lifers.”

“In the past, the courts have not always been very supportive of the freedom of speech of pro-life,” he said, so the ruling is “significant.”

As for Annen’s pro-life ministry, Pubbinck added: “He can continue to go and do, and I’m sure that he does, because he always did.”  

Share this article

Featured Image
A vibrant church in Africa. Pierre-Yves Babelon /
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, ,

‘Soft racism’: German Bishops’ website attributes African Catholics’ strong faith to simplemindedness

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

GERMANY, November 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) --  The only reason the Catholic Church is growing in Africa is because the people have a “rather low level” of education and accept “simple answers to difficult questions” involving marriage and sexuality, posited an article on the official website of the German Bishops' Conference posted yesterday. The article targeted particularly Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the Vatican's prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and ardent defender of Catholic tradition.

First Things blogger Leroy Huizenga, who translated a portion of the article, criticized the article's view as “soft racism.”

In his article, titled “The Romantic, Poor Church,” editor Björn Odendahl writes: 

So also in Africa. Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions (of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.

Huizenga said that such an article has no place on a bishops’ conference website. 

“We all know that the German Bishops' Conference is one of the most progressive in the world. But it nevertheless beggars belief that such a statement would appear on the Conference's official website, with its lazy slander of African Christians and priests as poor and uneducated (Odendahl might as well have added ‘easy to command’) and its gratuitous swipe at Cardinal Sarah,” he wrote. 

“Natürlich progressives could never be guilty of such a sin and crime, but these words sure do suggest soft racism, the racism of elite white Western paternalism,” he added. 

African prelates have gained a solid reputation for being strong defenders of Catholic sexual morality because of their unwavering orthodox input into the recently concluded Synod on the Family in Rome. 

At one point during the Synod, Cardinal Robert Sarah urged Catholic leaders to recognize as the greatest modern enemies of the family what he called the twin “demonic” “apocalyptic beasts” of “the idolatry of Western freedom” and “Islamic fundamentalism.”

STORY: Cardinal Danneels warns African bishops to avoid ‘triumphalism’

“What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism are today,” he said during his speech at the Synod last month. 

But African prelates’ adherence to orthodoxy has earned them enemies, especially from the camp of Western prelates bent on forming the Catholic Church in their own image and likeness, not according to Scripture, tradition, and the teaching magisterium of the Church. 

During last year’s Synod, German Cardinal Walter Kasper went as far as stating that the voice of African Catholics in the area of Church teaching on homosexuality should simply be dismissed.

African cardinals “should not tell us too much what we have to do,” he said in an October 2014 interview with ZENIT, adding that African countries are "very different, especially about gays.” 

Earlier this month Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, instead of praising Africa for its vibrant and flourishing Catholicism, said that African prelates will one day have to look to Europe to get what he called “useful tips” on how to deal with “secularization” and “individualism.” 

The statement was criticized by one pro-family advocate as “patronizing of the worst kind” in light of the facts that numerous European churches are practically empty, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are stagnant, and the Catholic faith in Europe, especially in Belgium, is overall in decline.

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook