Kristen Walker Hatten

Opinion

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

Kristen Walker Hatten
Image

October 12, 2012 (LiveActionNews.org) - 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 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