Bloodthirsty Liberal

Just catching up on some unfinished business, we reported on Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) appalling behavior toward Michele Bachmann the other day.

Well, give him credit, he apologized:

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) has apologized to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) for telling her to “act like a lady” during a debate over healthcare.

Specter called Bachmann last night and apologizes, Bachmann’s office tells MinnPost.com.

“He called her last night on her cell phone, he apologized for his comments, and she accepted,” said Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziol.

Here’s some background on the controversy:

A radio debate between Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (D) and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) on Thursday grew especially heated when the senator told the conservative congresswoman she ought to “act like a lady.”

As Bachmann finished describing tax policies she would ideally pursue in 2010, Specter began his response, criticizing the congresswoman for dodging the original question. That discussion became tense, as Bachmann continued to talk over Specter, prompting the Pennsylvania senator to charge: “Now wait a minute. I’ll stop and you can talk… I’ll treat you like a lady. So act like one.”

“I am a lady,” Bachmann replied.

I am heartened that my appeal to NOW (or NAG, as Rush calls them: National Association of Gals) to set aside political differences and condemn such sexist and bullying behavior moved them to release a state—… what’s that?

They didn’t? They didn’t do a thing?

But NOW has an urgent action page—they call it Hot Topics (but when you put women and hot in the same sentence I get a little distracted).

What is so pressing to push obnoxious, belittling behavior by a man toward a woman off the table?

CBS to Air Anti-Abortion Ad During Super Bowl

If that means one single GoDaddy internet ad featuring the girl with the enormous boobs is bumped off the broadcast (get it?), NOW’s outrage and high dudgeon will be nothing next to mine.

Lose a truck or beer ad—but don’t touch the GoDaddy Girl.

What else is on their minds?

Celebrating 37 Years of Roe v. Wade: NOW Asserts that Abortion Care is a Human Right

Marking 37 Years of Roe v. Wade: A Year Marked With Tragedy and Restrictions On Abortion Care

Abortion is great, got it. I wish I could have one myself. But surely the National Organization for Women defines itself more broadly (get it?) than just terminating the lives of unborn babies?

Mad As Hell and Not Going to Take It Anymore!

All right, girls! Now, you’re talking! What’s got your panties in a bunch? Specter’s treatment of Bachmann? Obama’s of Hillary? Obama’s of “Sweetie”?

Tell members of your congressional delegation that throwing women under the bus in health care reform legislation is not acceptable. Contrary to what women’s advocates have repeatedly been told, it now appears health care legislation allows gender rating after all. This, coupled with the anti-abortion rights language and other problems, renders the bill not worth passing unless these harmful provisions are removed.

Oh, for pete’s sake! It’s all abortion all the time with you people. If guys think only about sex, NOW members think only about offing the offspring.

How tiresome.

In China, not likely.

I’ve been easy on China lately, but only out of constraints of time and attention span.

What with spying, stealing, human rights violations, and coal mining deaths, they’ve been ever the bad actors on the world state that they’ve always been (I mean the Keanu Reeves of world state bad actors).

But in about ten years we’ll get our revenge when they can’t get laid:

Breaking China [Mark Steyn]

As readers may recall, I’ve been scoffing for years at theories of China as the 21st-century hyperpower. It has two huge structural defects — a) an aging population; and b) an ever more male population. This last is entirely owed to the Commies’ disastrous one-child policy which ensured the abortion of millions and millions of girl babies: A woman’s right to choose turns out in practice to be the right not to choose any women. Result: Millions and millions of young men who’ll never get a date. Not a recipe for social stability. A new report by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences considers some of the issues:

According to the report, 24 million men reaching marriageable age by 2020 will never marry because of the sex imbalance. Think of it in these terms: what if the entire population of New York City or of Australia was never able to marry. Imagine the social implications in a city or nation that large where no one can marry. Imagine if that city or country is comprised solely of 24 million men; men with no homes to return to at night; men without the responsibilities of a family to keep them engaged in productive pursuits.

That would be a problem for a responsible state with respect for individual liberty and the rule of law.

China? China???

While the number of baby girls being born has declined, the number of kidnappings and trafficking of young girls has risen. According to the National Population and Family Planning Commission — that’s right, the very organization responsible for the one-child family policy — abductions and trafficking of women and girls has become “rampant.”

Young girls are being kidnapped within China and also from neighboring countries (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand) by organized gangs who sell them to families with boys of a similar age. The girls will be raised by the families and given as brides to their sons as soon as they reach marriageable age. Others are shipped to brothels within China for a life as sex slaves.

To which Steyn concludes:

In his schoolgirl paeans to totalitarianism, has the China-smitten Thomas Friedman of the New York Times ever addressed these structural defects? Or any of the ecopalyptic warm-mongers expressing barely concealed admiration for Beijing’s population-control measures?

The gap between how smart Tom Friedman thinks he is and how smart Mark Steyn actually is is so wide, even President Obama’s narcissism can’t span it.

I won’t tell you what to think about abortion—I support it, with significant (to me) limits—but don’t tell me we have to pay for it.

Congratulations to Sen. Nelson of Nebraska, btw, for all the political swag he brought home. I just hope that, as an avowed abortion opponent, he can live with himself.

Nah, not really. He could hang himself in shame and despair for all I care.

SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

BLOGHER: It’s a bit confusing, but …

SEBELIUS: Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.

Whether you think abortion or bearing false witness is the greater sin, this bill is chock full of both. And it’s to be passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve. [Shudder.]

Where would you be if you heard and saw this?

“We believe in the goodness of our work.” The spokesperson points to a sign […] that says “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

A birth center, perhaps? Or maybe a hospice?

Not so much. Try abortion mill:

The clinic says that abortion while being a “normal experience” and sadly that is true as there have been over 45 million abortions since its legalization as the video points out. But the spokesperson goes further and says that abortion is also “a sign of strength courage and responsibility to thoughtfully consider whether or not to bring new life into the world.”

The video highlights a quote from murdered late term abortionist Dr. George Tiller and showcases it against a pink backdrop with a heart behind it while a soft piano plays in the background.

Abortion is not a cerebral or reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all. Dr. George Tiller 1941-2009

The clinic’s spokesperson assures women, “We believe you are making your decision from a place of goodness” and reminds them that “Goodness is not perfection, not obedience and it is not martyrdom. There is not one way of living a good life and sometimes we have to make hard choices.”

The clinic’s website tells mothers about some ways of coping with abortion including “releasing a symbolic object into the water, planting a tree or writing a poem. It would be a way for you to memorialize the day and move forward.”

…

Many women find they are talking to the spirit of the child inside of them. It may be useful and helpful to write your thoughts on paper. Some women write how they came to their decision, some ask for forgiveness. Some thank the spirit for the wisdom or thoughts they have had about life. Some write about the love they feel. Sometimes, having a way to say goodbye is an important part of healing.

…

“Remember: Go to factual and supportive sites. Use our Resources, or Choice Link Up. Avoid the negative traps of anti-choice sites.”

All good advice if you want to abort a child (their word). I guess a tree or a poem wouldn’t do any harm (well, a tree anyway), but may I ask all women who make the “sacred” decision to abort their child not to litter our streams, lakes, and rivers with “symbolic objects”? I don’t need to see your Cadbury wrappers and Oprah magazine covers befouling the river’s edge when I’m jogging along the Charles.

With the Obama administration set to consign women in their 40s to increased rates of breast cancer, and the left-wing media objectifying Sarah Palin’s admittedly objet d’art body, I’m sure our sisters at the National Organization for Women are full of piss and vinegar at the appalling treatment of women by the left.

What are the Hot Topics today, gals? Appropriate medical care for all women? Denouncing sexism in the media? Do tell:

NOW to Rally in Pitts’ Pennsylvania District to Denounce Stupak-Pitts Amendment

Tell Your Senators to Vote Against ‘Hyde on Steroids’

NOW Urges the Obama Administration to Prosecute Roeder Under Domestic Terrorism

NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access: Says Bill Obliterates Women’s Fundamental Right to Choose

NOW Vows to Press Forward After Fairness Defeated in Maine, Cheers Victory in Washington State

Four headlines about abortion and one about gay marriage.

All they have to say about the state of women today seems to come down to rejecting and denying anything that biologically defines the female sex. I’m not saying women have to have babies, but no one else can; nor am I saying they have to marry men, but it’s the primary method of reproduction. Under the heading of reproductive rights, NOW takes a scorched shirt—sorry, scorched earth attitude toward anything to do with limits on abortion.

Which is fine, even if I disagree. But NOW is in no way a national organization for women, or anyone else; it is a national organization for abortion. To say otherwise ignores all the evidence to the contrary. Women’s rights don’t mean equal access to health care, they don’t oppose cheesecake shots on national “news” magazine covers. They just mean the free and unfettered right to abort a fetus.

You’ve some a long way, baby.

One has to go to Rush Limbaugh to get the real story:

‘I am appalled and horrified,’ says Dr. David Dershaw, director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in response to the new guidelines. ‘There is no doubt that mammography screening in women in their 40s saves lives. To recommend that women abandon that is absolutely horrifying to me.’” Hello, Obamacare. Here you have a government panel upping the age of mammograms to 50. This is the beginning of rationed care….

Michael Capuano: Any child you can kill I can kill better.

Martha Coakley: I can kill any child better than you.

After appearing to waver on her controversial health care position, Attorney General Martha Coakley went on the offensive yesterday and indirectly challenged US Representative Michael E. Capuano over his vote last week to advance a bill with a provision that would limit coverage of abortions.

The issue dominated the US Senate race much of the past week, but Coakley put forth her strongest argument yet on a day when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to Boston to give a strong endorsement to Capuano and praise his health care stance.

“There are other matters where, of course, you would be involved in compromise,’’ Coakley said in an interview. “This is one, whether as a congresswoman or a senator, I wouldn’t have compromised on. This is an important issue for me; it always has been.’’

…

Capuano also scored the key backing yesterday of the person who negotiated the health care deal. Pelosi, the nation’s top female politician, said yesterday at the Omni Parker House in downtown Boston that Capuano was a strong congressional leader who cast a courageous vote on health care legislation.

“Any one of us could have found one reason or another not to vote for the bill,’’ Pelosi said. “But that was not any excuse for preventing this historic moment from taking place.’’

I don’t think Pelosi has any pull even here—but that’s not why Capuano supported the bill.

“Don’t you dare cross me, you goombah, or I swear I’ll cut your [bleeping] balls off and shove them down your throat.”

That’s why Capuano supported the bill.

In the race to replace Ted Kennedy (no one can replace him, of course, but anyone can improve on him), there is no depth to which the radically leftist candidates among the Democratic candidates will not sink, and sink happily, proudly, disgustingly.

Just ask any fetus; he or she will tell you:

A day after criticizing Attorney General Martha Coakley for saying she would have voted against a health care reform bill because it contained an anti-abortion amendment, Rep. Michael Capuano said through an aide that he’ll oppose a final version of the bill unless the amendment is eliminated.

…

Capuano faulted Coakley on Monday, saying a vote against the health care bill would have denied expanding health care to 36 million more Americans.

On Tuesday, Capuano spokeswoman Alison Mills said he’ll fight to improve the bill but would vote against it if it included the abortion amendment.

Fellow Democratic candidates Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca also oppose the amendment.

Wouldn’t political calculus suggest that there might be a political gain in setting oneself apart from the rabble in the Democratic Party and oppose public funding for abor—…?

What am I saying? Among Massachusetts Democrats? They’d throw babies into bonfires with pitchforks if they could—and call it alternative energy.

PS: I just heard a radio debate in which Michael Capuano said he’s back in support of the health care bill for which he voted, then said he opposed. Although he will then work tirelessly to allow public dollars for abortions after all. I think Madame Speaker reached out and gave him a little squeeze where it counts.

Hey, Mike, you’re running for Kennedy’s seat, not Kerry’s. Must we have two senators who were for something before they were against it? (Then for it again?)

Just read; we’ll discuss later:

Irene Vilar worries that her self-described “abortion addiction” will be misunderstood, twisted by the pro-life movement to deny women the right to choose.

Her book, “Impossible Motherhood,” which will be released by Other Press on Oct. 6, chronicles her own dark choices: 15 abortions in 16 years, much of it as a married woman.

As press on the book has begun to leak out, Vilar — a literary agent and editor — says she has already sensed “an inkling of hatred.”

…

Today, at 40, the Latina author has two young children, but her troubled past continues to haunt her well into motherhood.

She grew up in the shadow of her notorious grandmother Puerto Rican nationalist Lolita Lebron, who stormed the Capitol steps with a gun in 1954. Lebron served 25 years in jail for the crime until receiving a pardon from President Carter in 1979.

Her mother committed suicide by throwing herself from a moving car when Vilar was 8 and two of her brothers were heroin addicts.

Vilar’s story is set against the backdrop of the American-led mass sterilization program in her native Puerto Rico from 1955 to 1969, a fitting symbol for her struggle with her own reproduction.

By 1974, 37 percent of all Puerto Rican women of childbearing age had been permanently sterilized in that experiment.

“Women tend to repeat behaviors,” Vilar said of herself. Her mother’s forced hysterectomy without hormone treatment at the age of 33, led to depression and a Valium addition.

Vilar attended boarding school in New Hampshire and was just 15 when she left for Syracuse University, where she fell in love and later married her first husband, a tyrannical 50-year-old professor.

With a predilection for young women, he bragged that his relationships had never lasted more than five years and that having children killed sexual desire.

She says their emotionally dependent relationship was riddled with shame, self-mutilation and several suicide attempts.

Okay, she’s made a persuasive case for why she’s so [bleeped] up. But rather than excuse it under the blameless expression “repeat behaviors”, can we hold her responsible for taking out her miserable childhood (and adulthood) on innocent unborn babies (fetuses, if you prefer)? She has violated no laws that I know of, except all moral laws.

She uses the word “addiction”. Don’t addicts use to get high? Did she get a buzz after each “procedure”? Did she start to jones every few months? Note that she wasn’t addicted to pregnancy, but to abortion. Her only fix was in the slaughter of her embryos.

If she’s not a criminal, society is. Menopause is the only brake on her mad desire to abort every year. She can’t be forced to stop having sex, to use birth control, to have the children. She can have every abortion she wants—and she did. Excuse me if I have to ask what her two children must think of themselves and their mom. How did they survive her uterine Russian roulette, and don’t they ever wonder about the enormous family they might have come from?

Excuse my language, but what else can one say to this?

Authorities in China have highlighted inadequate knowledge of contraception and poor sex education as major factors in the high number of abortions there.

There are 13 million abortions each year, compared to 20 million births, according to newly published research.

Researchers believe the real figure could be even higher because there are many abortions at unregistered clinics.

…

Although the number is high, China’s abortion rate of 24 per 1,000 woman of childbearing age, as the rate is usually calculated, is far from the top of the international list.

According to UN figures, Russia is highest with more than 50. The US has 15 and Spain just under 12.

China began restricting the number of children each couple can have in 1978. Officials say this has prevented 400 million extra births.

The article says that in some years Russia has more abortions than live births.

Holy [bleep]!

I’m sure Mark Steyn must have mentioned this before, but I’m stunned. It’s like something out of a bad Hollywood movie, filmed monochromatically, with dreary overcast skies and the threat of rain.

Sometimes, I feel like all America has to do to win its wars of attrition against communism and radical Islam is just tread water and wait for the nasty bits to get flushed away. Joe Biden was right about Russia; he was just an idiot to say it.

We don’t have to wait until Sunday to find out:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

I don’t know what she means, but I feel stick to my stomach. That’s something Hitler might have said.