Archive for Abortion

A Prophylactic Loss

Sandra Fluke ran for Congress in California, and lost—to another Democrat!

The face of the Obamacare contraception mandate has lost her bid for state Senate in California’s 26th Congressional District.

Sandra Fluke was facing off against another Democrat, Ben Allen, who is a board member of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

The women’s rights activist received 39 percent of the vote while Allen won with 61 percent.

In the War on Women, sweetheart, you just became France! That was a spanking.

I had forgotten she was running for office, as indeed did many liberals.

I wonder what her pitch was?

My career has always been devoted to the public interest and fighting for social justice.

Career? What career? She came to the public eye only because she had the ‘nads to demand that a Catholic institution at which she was a mere student pay for her birth control. If that’s a “career” what box does she check on the census under “Profession” (other than “professional”—sorry, sorry, bad joke)?

I believed it was my responsibility to use the microphone I was given to advocate for the progressive policies I’ve always fought for: affordable health care, access to a quality education, LGBTQ rights and economic justice.

What, no rubbers?

Sandra graduated cum laude [wipe that smirk off your face] from Georgetown University Law Center as a Public Interest Law Scholar with a Certificate in Refugee and Humanitarian Emergencies. In 2003, she received a B.S. [wipe that one off too] from Cornell University in Policy Analysis and Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies [I'll bet she did]. Sandra and her husband, Adam, live in West Hollywood with their dog, Mr. President.

No kids, huh? Well, give those two lovebirds time. Can’t keep their hands off each other.

For more than two years, Sandra worked with a grassroots coalition to pass the California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, which was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and is designed to ensure domestic workers have the same protections that other workers enjoy. At the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking in Los Angeles, Sandra is one of the longest running volunteer attorneys representing victims of human trafficking. She has advocated for student loan debt relief, access to early childhood education and for raising the minimum wage.

I stand corrected. If “volunteer attorney” at the “Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking” isn’t partnership track, I don’t know what is. Her dog may be Mr. President, but alas she will not be Congresswoman Fluke.

Comments

But She’s Got a Nice Personality

I must have a fascination for the grotesque, the macabre, the ghastly. I am fascinated by stories of plague (Ebola), raping and pillaging (ISIS and Boko Haram), mass psychosis (everything Palestinian Arab)…

…and Lena Dunham.

Untitled

Strangely, it’s only the last that makes my skin crawl:

Lena Dunham has taken over the internet – at least when it comes to some of her fellow celebrities.

The 28-year-old posted a topless photo of herself to Instagram on Thursday, tying in both her new book Not That Kind Of Girl and a campaign to get people to vote for women’s rights.

The Girls creator’s naked selfie followed a series of pictures posted by some of Hollywood’s biggest leading ladies, who all proudly wore a shirt advertising the dual campaign with the slogan ‘Lena Loves Planned Parenthood’ emblazoned across their chests.

She captioned the montage: ‘These dream women stand for equality and justice. And they encourage you to vote November 4th.’

What Lena really loves is abortion, which is the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s services (as we’ve addressed before).

This is America, and Lena can love any organization she wants. (I love the International Cheer Union, “the recognized world governing body of Cheerleading”, myself.) But what Lena loves even more than abortion is Lena herself, all of her. She claims to be “not that kind of girl”, but I am hard pressed—no, let me rephrase—at a loss to explain what kind of girl she is. Other than dumpy.

And no, that’s not just my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism; it’s Lena herself. She’s a dumpling, and she sells it better than anyone since Joyce Chen. Again, that’s American greatness in action. I just don’t remember male American tubbos using their bodies to promote favorite political causes. Fatty Arbuckle on women’s suffrage? No idea. Chris Farley on gays in the military? Not a clue.

Now that I think of it, however, fat chicks in entertainment can’t shut up about their politics: Roseanne Barr, Rosie O’Donnell, Oprah (at times), Lena. I’m tempted to say it’s because they have their gobs open all the time, but that would be my quaint Bloodthirstan sexism talking. I’ll just leave it as an observation.

And conclude by saying this election can’t come soon enough. The less I see of Lena Dunham, the better. (I don’t want to see anything at all.) God knows what she’ll be tweeting in 2016. [Shudder.]

PS: We now return to more palatable subjects, like genocide and enterovirus.

Comments

From the Folks That Brought You the Weekend

As they never get tired of reminding us.

But what have they done to us lately?

Two Pennsylvania teachers are fighting the state’s largest teachers union for interfering with their charitable giving.

The teachers allege in a suit filed in district court that the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) is blocking them from exercising their right to donate union dues money to charity. Pennsylvania allows religious objectors to cut ties with unions as long as they donate an equivalent agency fee payment to charity. That money is given to the union, which is then supposed to send it to the charity of the teacher’s choosing.

Jane Ladley, an elementary school teacher for 25 years before retiring in June, said that the union prevented her from directing her $435 donation to a scholarship fund to teach high school seniors about the Constitution because it was “too political.”

Ladley, 61, began teaching in the 1970s and was a member of the teachers union for seven years. She put her career on hold to raise her children before returning to the workforce in 1996. This time, she refused to join after discovering that the union “funneled money to Planned Parenthood.”

Which is not political in the least. Perish the thought.

Well, not much:

Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), the “political arm” of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, combined with other Planned Parenthood affiliates to spend several million dollars during the last five weeks of the 2000 general election campaign to broadcast two ads criticizing George W. Bush’s record on abortion rights.

Because Planned Parenthood’s overall structure includes a 501(c)(4) entity, a 501(c)(3) entity, a federally regulated PAC and a 527 organization, it is difficult to determine which pots of money paid for which ads.

Planned Parenthood also has announced plans to file with the Federal Election Commission as a Qualified Non-profit Corporation (also known as a “Massachusetts Citizens for Life,” or MCFL, group), a status set aside for ideological 501(c)(4) corporations that do not accept funds from labor unions or corporations.8 Such groups are permitted to use unlimited donations from individuals to pay for “express advocacy” communications, which urge the election or defeat of candidates. They also may make “electioneering communications,” which are defined as broadcast ads that mention candidates during the 60 days preceding general elections or the 30 days preceding primaries or conventions. Other independent groups are prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) from making electioneering communications unless they set up separate, segregated funds that do not receive corporate or union money.

Except when they do receive union money, that is. And engage in politics.

The Mafia was never so brazen with its fronts and shell corporations. Planned Parenthood doesn’t even try to hide it. Neither do the unions. Who, yes, brought us the 40-hour work week. (If we work at all.)

Meanwhile, any group with “dog whistle” words like “liberty”, “rights”, and “patriot” in their name had to undergo months (years!) of delays and a body cavity search to earn 501 (c)(4) status. Compare and contrast.

Comments

Girls Gone Defiled

The debate over abortion is complicated by two undeniable rights: the right to life and the right of a woman to control her own body.

We right-to-lifers (well, this right-to-lifer anyway) weigh the arguments, and come down on the side of the feminists who demand that abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will continue, but with restrictions. That seems to us (me) the only solution that honors both rights (or dishonors them equally). Does the right-to-terminate crowd make the same intellectual efforts at compromise of the uncompromisable?

You tell me:

If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

You think that’s strong? Grab your Ray-Bans (with UVA and UVB protection):

A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

I’m of a generation that went to college with women. If you referred to an 18 year-old coed as a girl, and you had your balls scorched with a blow torch. (Refer to her as a coed and you got away with a warning kick in said scrotum.) One learned to adjust, and those lessons stayed with one for a lifetime.

Have I lived too long?

Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special.

“I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote,” she writes, “then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days. I can summon it when I’m blue. It’s more effective than exercise or ecstasy or cheesecake.” And that of course is the highest purpose of our ancient constitutional order: to provide adult children with pleasures exceeding those of cheesecake or empathogenic phenethylamines.

Miss Dunham’s “all about me!” attitude toward the process of voting inevitably extends to the content of what she votes for, which is, in her telling, mostly about her sex life. Hammering down hard on the Caps Lock key, she writes: “The crazy and depressing truth is that there are people running for office right now who could actually affect your life. PARTICULARLY your sex life. PARTICULARLY if you’re a woman. Yup.”

Yup? Nope.

Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary. The very conservative editors of this magazine are in fact trying to make it easier for them to do so with over-the-counter birth control. I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.

Are you listening Sandra Fluke? (Very doubtful.)

I followed my feminist instructions in no small part because I wanted to get into their feminist pants. As some of my much-desired prey would be grandmothers by now, I am more inclined to be swayed by if not Ms. Dunham, at least some of her castmates:

Yet I am not. Juvenile behavior is never sexy, no matter how “easy” it may be.

Comments (1)

Liberal Fascism

Aggie and I will walk away from this blog when the phrase in the title is taken as a tautology. We might well walk away before that, or I will, but when the world comes to see that liberalism inexorably leads to fascism, our work will be done.

Another nail in liberalism’s coffin:

Five years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:

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.

Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice.

Indeed. But if she really believes it…:

I thought of all this when I read through another interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You know how you have friends who complain about a super-old relative who just starts spouting racist stuff and can’t be quieted down? This is what interviews with Ginsburg remind me of.

I’m not saying she’s just like a crazy old racist great-aunt who keeps embarrassing us and we can’t do anything about it, but that’s basically what I’m saying.

Anyway, in an interview with Elle, she says her kid and grandkid don’t get how awful it would be to not have legal approval for snuffing out one’s growing baby in the womb. And then when she’s trying to say that protections for unborn children hurt poor women more than wealthy women since wealthy women can just pay the baby away, she lets that old eugenics thing slip again:

It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

It would be one thing if she were talking about the importance of promoting birth among all groups of people as a way of affirming the sacredness of life or what not, but her long-standing focus on how some “populations” shouldn’t be encouraged to have babies and should have subsidized abortion is beyond creepy. We get it, RBG, your social circles think life would be so much better if you didn’t have to deal with those awful poor people and their unapproved backgrounds and living conditions. But you’re supposed to be a tad bit better in covering up those motivations, mmmkay?

Beyond creepy. Ain’t it the truth. And she’s a liberal heroine beyond compare.

Hand me another nail, would ya?

Comments (1)

Feminism’s Third Rail

There’s got to be a joke in that title somewhere, but until one suggests itself, we’ll stick with tragedy:

Narinder is one of four sons and only one of his brothers has managed to get married. In his district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, there are only 858 girls born for every 1,000 boys, a ratio that doesn’t occur naturally without medical intervention. The northwestern state of Uttar Pradesh is home to one of the largest skewed sex ratios in India.

“Only the rich and men with government jobs manage to get a bride these days,” he says. “Anyone who earns less cannot find a bride here anymore.”

To be fair, the job doesn’t have a lot to recommend it:

A new bride would help his parents, he says. “They would have had an easier life. They would have had someone to cook and to take care of them.”

She should clean. She should run the household. She should bear children. And Narinder plans to share her with his two unmarried brothers, who live in the same house.

Where do I sign?

On the one hand, they’re snuffing around 15% of unborn girls; on the other, the girls who are permitted to be born grow up to marry rich men, rather than shmoes like Narinder, and his brothers, and his parents, and his children. That’s a decent trade.

Isn’t it?

Decades of sex-selective abortion have created an acute lack of women in certain parts of India. Traffickers capitalize on the shortage by recruiting or kidnapping women ensnared in poverty to sell as brides. It’s a cycle influenced by poverty and medical technologies, but one that ultimately is perpetuated by India’s attitude towards women.

The National Crime Records Bureau estimated in 2012 that about 10 women are kidnapped in Assam every day. Some of these women are found again. Some go missing forever.

Eastern Indian states like Assam, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Odisha turn into source areas for bride trafficking, because they have much more balanced sex ratios. Meanwhile, India’s northwestern states are more conservative and also more affluent, meaning they’re able to afford ultrasound scans and selective abortions.

So, abortion in India effects girl babies overwhelmingly, and leads to such an imbalance between the sexes that teenage girls are routinely kidnapped from their homes and sold as child brides.

Hello? Betty Friedan? Gloria Steinem?

I went to NOW’s website and looked up India. I confess I expected nothing, but I was wrong.

There was one entry on this topic:

Jim Yardley reports for The New York Times: “India’s increasing wealth and improving literacy are apparently contributing to a national crisis of ‘missing girls,’ with the number of sex-selective abortions up sharply among more affluent, educated families during the past two decades, according to a new study.”

Read the original source

That was more than three years ago, and that was it. No comment, no discussion, no nothing. In the meantime, 11,980 girls have been abducted in Assam alone (if the rate is accurate and consistent). I don’t think I can count how many girls were terminated before birth.

To repeat for the thousandth time, I don’t oppose abortion. Though less and less can I morally justify even my limited pro-choice position. Abortion leads to massive abuse against women in India (China’s little better, if not worse) and genocide among African Americans. In a sane world (a fanciful construct if there ever was one), feminists would oppose abortion with every fibroid of their being. Organizations like NOW and Planned Parenthood would be exposed as the brainwashers that they really are.

“Women’s reproductive health”? That’s a locution worthy of Stalin, Mao, or Goebbels. I guess that’s the joke.

Comments

Fetus…Baby…Whatever You Call It…

Don’t call it “difficult”:

Planned Parenthood calls abortion “a difficult decision” in many of its consent forms and fact sheets. When NARAL launched a film on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2013, the president of the pro-choice organization called abortion “a difficult decision” women and couples face.

Lawmakers use the adjective, too. “It was a difficult, difficult decision, but it was the right one,” Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores said last month in defending her choice to have an abortion at age 16. In 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton described the decision to have an abortion as “one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make” and “often the most difficult [decision] that a woman will ever make.”

However, when the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning “informed consent” laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.

Often, abortion isn’t a difficult decision. In my case, it sure wasn’t.

Good for her. I’m glad it was a piece of cake. Easy-peasy. A snap. (Or was that the baby’s spine?)

Who needs the agro?

Today, when advocates on both sides of the debate talk about the decision to have an abortion, they preface their statements with adjectives such as “difficult,” “hard” or “reluctant.” For anti-abortion conservatives, the reason for using such language is clear: Abortion is murder, they contend, but characterizing a woman who has one as a murderer is a bit, well, harsh. A more charitable view is to assume that she must have struggled with making this immoral choice. Pro-choice advocates use the “difficult decision” formulation for a similar reason, so as not to demonize women. It also permits pro-choice candidates to look less dogmatic.

But there’s a more pernicious result when pro-choice advocates use such language: It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate. To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.

And we can’t have that! The “status of a being”? Piffle!

If the fetus is not a being (as if!), she doesn’t tell us what it is instead. I’d kind of like to know.

Not only is abortion not a difficult choice, it’s not even a choice:

Abortion rights groups are struggling to expand their message from “pro-choice” — which they say no longer resonates with voters as it once did — to more broadly encompass women’s health and economic concerns. The movement needs such recalibration precisely because it was drawn into a moral debate about the fetus’s hypothetical future rather than the woman’s immediate and tangible future. Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of “choice,” terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive “difficult decision” posture.

Option, shmoption—get busy abortin’ or get busy buyin’…diapers.

There’s not all that much room between me and the pro-choice crowd. I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, just as they do. The only difference is I mean it. The “pro-neccessity” crowd does not.

Comments

War on Women Update

With all the bloodshed and carnage Muslims are inflicting (mostly) on each other across the world, it’s easy to forget the savagery (mostly) women are putting themselves through. But we have WBTL ace reporter on the scene.

Whaddya got, Scoop?

The Ohio Department of Health has taken action against two Northeast Ohio abortion clinics for staffing problems and other infractions.

The Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls was denied a license to perform surgical abortions by interim health department director Lance Himes, the agency said Friday. Himes also imposed a $25,000 fine on Planned Parenthood of Bedford Heights.

What sort of health violations, Scoop?

At each of the facilities, health inspectors found expired medical supplies and discovered neither had a director of nursing, as required by the state, according to health department notification letters sent to the clinics on Wednesday.

At the Planned Parenthood clinic, inspectors also reported finding improperly refrigerated tissue specimens, containers of urine in a cupboard and bathroom, and incomplete documentation about patients sent to the hospital.

Scoop, I understand that this is not their first brush with the law:

A northeastern Ohio abortion provider has closed after failing a state health and safety inspection.

The Ohio Department of Health ordered abortion provider Capital Care Network of Cuyahoga Falls to stop operations in an April 16 letter and says it soon will revoke the clinic’s license.

The health department says inspectors found numerous violations during a Feb. 21 inspection, including undertrained staff, failure to maintain a safe and sanitary environment and failure to maintain patient documentation.

The health department gave the clinic a chance to request a hearing about a proposal to revoke its license, but says the clinic did not reply.

Why should they reply, Scoop, when they can just fold up their tents under cover of darkness and reopen somewhere else with their unfrozen tissue samples and plastic cups of stale urine? Scoop…Scoop? I guess we’ve lost contact.

Let’s get comment from the other side of the issue:

“We’re deeply concerned, though admittedly unsurprised, that multiple abortion facilities are jeopardizing the lives and health of women,” said Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life. “The real war on women is being waged everyday in these unsafe and unsanitary abortion mills. These reports shock the conscience and reaffirm our resolve to protect life from Ohio’s abortion industry.”

“The abortion industry”: how apt a word.

I’m a big believer in women’s reproduction and in women’s health. But the minute you start talking about women’s reproductive health, you lose me. Just imagine if women were treated this shabbily in any other setting, the Obama administration, say. You’d never hear the end of it. (Oh wait…they are, and you barely hear a peep.)

Comments

Beverly Shill-Billy

I would have thought that for a person with national political ambitions, languishing in a state senate would feel like exile. But a young political organizer named Barry Sotero, whose “presence” in Springfield, IL for an eternity of eight years must have felt like Elba, showed those with inflated opinions of themselves that state government offered more opportunity than first met the eye.

All you need, beside the outsized ego, is… well, that’s about all you need:

Sandra Fluke has moved on to the general election in the race to represent California’s 26th District in the state Senate, the Associated Press reports.

Fluke finished second in the open primary, following rival Ben Allen. Both will compete in November for the seat being vacated by state Sen. Ted Lieu (D), who’s running for Congress this year.

Fluke came to national prominence in 2012 after testifying before Congress in favor of mandatory contraception coverage. She became the target of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who called the then-Georgetown Law student a “slut.”

The attorney and activist, who spoke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention following Limbaugh’s attacks, briefly weighed running for outgoing Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) House seat before deciding to run for the state Senate instead.

That’s the Georgetown Law (and Cornell undergrad) mind on display. Her sister in Socialism, Cindy Sheehan (an ugly step-sister, if I may rudely and honestly observe), shot too high, the California Governorship, but got no closer to that office than her lean-to in Crawford, TX. Sandra knew it wasn’t the office, but the ambition, that defined the office holder—especially when that office represents Beverly Hills and Hollywood.

Forget streetlights, pot holes, and pot dispensaries, Sandra Fluke—Senator Fluke to you, Rush—has higher (or lower) aims:

Protect women’s health care rights!

Any day now, the Supreme Court will announce its decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The case could have far-reaching implications for whether private companies can refuse to offer their employees’ health insurance with contraception coverage.

Plain and simple — A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions. No one’s boss should. The stakes are too high for us to be silent.

Please join Sandra Fluke and the DCCC and sign this petition declaring that a woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.

A woman’s boss should not have a say in her health care decisions.

Agreed. But we’re not talking about setting broken bones or treating breast cancer. That’s health care, and irrelevant to an employer. Abortion and contraception (two radically different things, in my view) might also be health care, but hardly irrelevant to an employer being asked to pay for them. Especially an employer with religious objections. Does a woman have a say in her boss’s morality?

The law has to find common sense middle ground between absurd extremes. Could a Christian Science employer withhold insurance that used medicine? Could an employee require his or her employer to add or subtract certain body parts? To mutilate or decorate those remaining?

It’s dishonest of Sandra to disguise abortion as “women’s health care rights”—hence her bright future in politics. I won’t predict what the Supreme Court will say, beyond guessing that it will be a split decision, with strong sentiments on both sides. One side will “win”, without exactly being “right”.

And Sandra Fluke will have gone from “slut” to Senator (albeit State Senator, in Sacramento) in this great nation of ours. Though the difference is less than you might imagine.

Comments

Dispatches From the Frontlines of the War on Women

Well, girls, actually:

A shocking new video Live Action released today catches the Planned Parenthood abortion business teaching teenagers about S&M-based sexual relationships and concepts such as gagging, whipping and asphyxiation.

In a series of undercover audits, Live Action investigators documented Planned Parenthood counselors and nurses advising our investigators, who the Planned Parenthood staffers thought were minors, on how to practice torture sex.

In the videos, Planned Parenthood counselors encourage undercover investigators posting as 15 and 16-year-old teens, to engage in the sadomasochistic practices, telling the underage teens “if it’s consensual, it’s OK… it’s totally OK.”

The official Planned Parenthood website lists BD (bondage and discipline) and SM (sadomasochism) under its Sex & Sexuality – “Understanding Sexual Activity — at a Glance” page without any warnings or safety objections: “Here are some examples of less common sexual behaviors: SM (sadomasochism) — the use of domination and/or pain for sexual arousal. BD (bondage and discipline) — sexual role play that includes elements of SM.”

I tend to draw the line at the interrogation practices of Uday and Qusay Hussein. But don’t let me stop you. Susie.

“What we’re about to release shows a systemic, institutional problem in America’s largest abortion corporation,” Lila Rose, Live Action’s president, stated. “It’s not a matter of ‘don’t judge,’ but rather explicit endorsement of violent and harmful sexual practices to boys and girls as young as fifteen years old.”

The group complains: “Planned Parenthood consistently fights any law requiring parental consent or involvement for minors seeking sexual and reproductive health care, including abortions. PP’s website encourages teens to circumvent their parents and the law.”

“Taxpayers, and especially parents, need to know where their money is going,” Rose said. “This funding is not optional – it’s a compulsory, government-enforced extraction going toward extremely questionable programs and dangerous advice for our nation’s teens.”

Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million a year from taxpayers, in the name of so-called sex education and health. Furthermore, under ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood has announced that it will receive undisclosed funds through the $75-million-a-year PREP (Personal Responsibility and Education Program), with 15 affiliates already having received grants.

This is how they talk to 15-year-olds, remember. A little whipping, a touch of asphyxiation—don’t knock it till you’ve tried it. Missy.

Comments

The Abortion Industry’s Annual Report

My standard boilerplate introduction: I reluctantly allow for abortion (I could hardly say I support it). The only way I see to respect the conflicting rights to life and womens’ autonomy is to keep abortion (borrowing from the feminists) safe, legal, and rare.

But I won’t accept BS on the topic (unless you consider the above to be BS).

Planned Parenthood is in the business of abortion, and like good capitalists, they want business to be booming:

[F]rom a Catholic or orthodox Christian worldview, Planned Parenthood is a clear blight on society. But I hope this resource will help demonstrate that Planned Parenthood is a blight, even from a secular perspective.

First, the obvious: Planned Parenthood says it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011, and just over 327,000 in 2012. Each one of these abortion grievously harmed a pregnant woman, and, according to my calculations, in 2014 Planned Parenthood will kill more than 153,000 unborn girls.

For a frame of reference, Planned Parenthood will kill six percent of the girls that American mothers will carry in 2014. And this is just the number owned up to by Planned Parenthood, since it counts some abortifacients as contraceptives.

[T]o bring someone around to opposing Planned Parenthood and preventing it from receiving hundreds of millions of your tax dollars, we can get into the legal and ethical violations brought to light by Live Action.

First, a number of clinic employees were recorded breaking laws on statutory rape, and helping people pretending to be a pimp and a prostitute break similar laws about sex trafficking. All of the alleged victims were female.

On at least four recorded occasions, Planned Parenthood employees took money from donors who wanted black babies targeted for extermination. And still other employees were caught on video telling undercover women how to most effectively find out the sex of their baby in order to kill it if the baby was female.

Lastly, employees at multiple clinics were recorded lying about whether women had been harmed at the clinics. All of the clinic employees said nobody had been harmed, despite recent medical emergencies at many of the locations.

So much for “women’s reproductive health”!

GM covers up the extent of its recall problem and it’s front-page news for days. Presidential candidate Barack Obama boasts he’ll ruin the coal industry by himself. But the abortion industry’s chief practitioner, Planned Parenthood, can plot to kill black and female babies—potentially harming the very women it claims to care about—and it’s practically a national secret.

If you don’t give me safe and rare, why should I give you legal?

Comments

Murder is Their Business, and Business Sure is Swell

At least one industry in Detroit is alive: the death industry.

Nearly one-third of all pregnancies in the city of Detroit end in abortion, a statistic public health officials blame on rising poverty and dwindling access to affordable contraception.

Can we stop here for a second? Affordable contraception? How much does a condom cost? Nothing, if you get it from Planned Parenthood. (They tell us they offer more services than just abortion—here’s their chance to prove it.)

Anyway, back to the jolly news:

While the abortion rate has been climbing in Detroit, it’s been declining in Michigan and across the U.S. “We’re seeing a picture that looks more like some Third-World country than someplace in the United States,” said Dr. Susan Schooley, chairwoman of the Department of Family Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital.

Funding for family planning and contraceptives has decreased significantly in Michigan in recent years, from more than $5 million in 2006 to $692,300 in 2013, according to the state Department of Community Health. The number of clients receiving free family-planning assistance decreased by about 80,000 between 2006 and 2013.

“Both routine primary care and family planning-specific primary care are not available in Detroit,” Schooley said. “To the extent that a significant proportion of those (pregnancies) are unplanned, it leads to all these decision-making options of which abortion is one lousy choice.”

On that we agree. I do have to wonder, however, how these clients are so engaged with medicine to get their abortions, yet so disengaged when it comes to “family planning”. I guess a city so wasted as Detroit really has been “re-primitivized”—darkened streets, vast tracts of abandoned buildings, a population plummet of almost two-thirds. (Say, you don’t suppose that could be related, do you?) Concepts such as consequence and responsibility seem irrelevant to life on Detroit’s streets.

I just wish the victims of this genocide weren’t disparately born by unborn black children. (Detroit is over 80% black.)

It’s another public health challenge for Detroit, which is the most dangerous city in America to be a child, according to a Detroit News study. Published in January, the study found that the death rate for children 18 and younger is higher in Detroit than in any U.S. city its size or larger. The highest number of deaths occur in the first year, most related to premature birth. Homicide is the second greatest cause of child deaths in the city.

Just peachy. Those children who survive until birth will be lucky to live to adulthood. It really is “third world”.

But have you noticed something missing from this story?

Loretta Davis, president and CEO of Detroit’s Institute for Population Health, which administers health services for the city of Detroit including family planning programs, said the increasing abortion rate represents a “public health failure.”

“Somehow, we need to be able to get to these women and girls and reach them in such a way that they are able to make a healthy decision around their sexuality and choose a method of birth control that will work for them,” Davis said.

Have I forgotten my biology, or do women and girls need men and boys to have an abortion (who has babies anymore)? Why are they excluded from this discussion? The article mentions all sorts of medical interventions on women (pills, implants, multiple abortions), yet ignores the cheapest (and safest, I’ll wager) contraception of all (save abstinence), the condom. I won’t dictate personal preference, but if the slogan “keep your laws off our bodies” is to have any meaning, someone has to take responsibility for your bodies. I’d rather it not fall so disproportionately on the black unborn.

PS: Call me what you will, but if you polled the black unborn, I think they’d agree with me.

PPS: I have written essentially the same piece several times before, about the abortion rate among black women in New York City. So, it’s not unique to Detroit. The “third world” extends to a stone’s throw from Park Avenue and the West Village, too.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »