Category Archives: Abortion


Just a thought…


Leave a comment

Posted by on August 4, 2015 in Abortion


Tags: , ,

In Iowa, Abortion would be Murder, No Exceptions?

It seems an Iowan State Senator – yes from the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Rob Bacon and eight equally wing-nut conservative fellows have decided to introduce legislation that would redefine murder, and according to the Ames Tribune, the bill would “alter the definition of a person in murder cases to “an individual human being, without regard to age of development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is formed, until natural death.”

bob bacon

When asked why he would introduce something so idiotic in the 21st Century, Bacon replied, “It’s to protect the life of the unborn; there’s still some of us that believe life begins at conception.”

Essentially Bacon’s bill would make the constitutionally protected right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy illegal.

Bacon said his bill was needed to refocus the party, “I’ve felt long and hard after the last election that we need to change our message. Within our party, we’re going to differ on social issues. One of them is the right to life. There are some who say that we need to ease up on this because it’s not winning us anything. My thought is we can’t let this drop. Even if I’m in here screaming to empty walls, I will always be a voice for the unborn.”

This is the new GOTP – the modern Republican Party – and it’s not the face of America. It’s the face of fanatical uber-conservative white so-called “Christianity”. It’s the face of an angry, frustrated group which doesn’t love the Constitution and which doesn’t respect the rights of women. Please, by all means, continue introducing this type of nonsense; eventually you’ll legislate your party into historical footnote status.


Posted by on April 15, 2013 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

You can’t make this stuff up …


 Mary Sue McClurkin, Alabama GOP Lawmaker, Claims A Baby Is The ‘Largest Organ In A Body’

1 Comment

Posted by on February 19, 2013 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


How Offensive Can One Person Be?

how to stop abortion


Posted by on January 28, 2013 in Abortion



In New Mexico Moronic Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As ‘Tampering With Evidence’

According to news reports, an incredibly obtuse Republican lawmaker in New Mexico has introduced a bill legally requiring rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.


House Bill 206, is the brain child of state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), and would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for “tampering with evidence.”

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime,” the bill says, and third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

The bill’s unlikely to pass though since Democrats have a majority in both chambers of New Mexico’s state legislature.

Brown claims she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then obtains or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

Really, the baby’s going to be the only evidence of the rape? How about a rape kit used collect DNA evidence? Are you really this ignorant? Are you this arrogant?

“New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”

Wow, Republican Tea Party (GOTP) types have used tortured logic before in order to inflict additional harm upon rape victims – enforced vaginal probes, trying to define “legitimate” rape as well as claiming a woman’s body can prevent a pregnancy if she’s raped – but none has gone this far. Brown appears to be another unthinking right-wing zealot who will do whatever she can to impose her views; she serves as a member of the board of Carlsbad’s Right to Life chapter, and she’s also fond of posting pictures to her Facebook page from the Life’s Issues Institute such as the following:

life's issues photo

Brown’s now attempting to backtrack claiming the bill, as introduced, was a misprint. Wanting to charge a rape victim with a third degree felony if she gets an abortion isn’t misprinting Representative, it’s a deliberate attempt to force your myopic Christianity upon everyone else. Thank God the Constitution provides for a separation of Church and State to protect my daughters and granddaughters, my nieces and friends from the likes of good god-fearing Christians like you.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2013 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GOTP House passes misogynistic legislation giving Pope authority to kill American women?

So, let me get this straight, during a time when Americans are facing severe economic distress the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) House of Representatives has nothing better to do with its time than to debate and pass a bill it knows will die in the Senate?

The Huffington Post is reporting that GOTP majority House yesterday passed the so-called Protect Life Act, which prohibits women from buying health insurance plans covering abortion under the Affordable Care Act and makes it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions.

Whatever happened to “first do no harm”? I guess the woman’s life is to be valued less than the unborn baby’s is? Do these idiots understand if the Mom dies probably the baby does too? Are we killing two birds with one stone, or just deciding a woman who would choose an abortion isn’t worthy to live in the Tea Party’s Brave New World?

GOTP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor – of course a huge proponent of the bill – told voters last week its purpose is “to ensure that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”


Did you fall out of your clown car and get dragged down the street your head bouncing repeatedly on the pavement?

How many times is the GOTP going to perpetrate this falsehood? Talk about propaganda – telling the big lie long enough for everyone to believe it; well fortunately we don’t all have out radios tuned to Limbaugh and our TVs locked on FOX.

The Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) already keeps public dollars separate from the private insurance payments covering abortion, and a federal judge ruled in August that the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List had to stop making the claim on its website that “Obamacare” subsidizes abortions because the assertion is false.

“The express language of the [Affordable Care Act] does not provide for taxpayer-funded abortion,” the opinion states. “That is a fact, and it is clear on its face.”

Maybe the Judge needs to include the GOTP in his ruling? Cantor is a schmuck; he knows there’s no public dollars going to fund abortion and he’s using it as a flag to wave in what he further knows is going to be a very tough re-election year for his GOTP majority.

Huffington reports H.R. 358 goes beyond the issue of taxpayer dollars to place actual limits on the way a woman spends her own money however; the bill would also prevent a woman from buying a private insurance plan that includes abortion coverage through a state health care exchange, even though most insurance plans currently cover abortion.

So, the GOTP which prides itself on proclaiming how it’s opposed to government intrusion into private lives has absolutely no qualms about intruding into private lives when it comes to abortion?

What’s even more abhorrent about the bill is that allows hospitals that are “morally” opposed to abortion, such as Catholic establishments, to do nothing for a woman who requires an emergency abortion procedure to save her life, to basically condemn a wife, daughter, mother, sister, aunt, cousin or friend to death; talk about death panels – now we’re going to allow the Pope to decide (with Congressional approval) who lives and who dies? When did the United States become a protectorate to the Vatican?

Reportedly, current law requires hospitals give patients in life-threatening situations whatever care they need, regardless of the patient’s financial situation, but the Protect Life Act would make a hospital’s obligation to provide care in medical emergencies secondary to its refusal to provide abortions.

Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier said she personally faced a situation in which an abortion was medically necessary.

“I was pregnant, I was miscarrying, I was bleeding,” she said on the House floor Thursday. “If I had to go from one hospital to the next trying to find one emergency room that would take me in, who knows if I would even be here today. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is misogynist.”

Yes Congresswoman it does appear that way, but what’s worse is that the uber-conservative GOTP House majority is trying to enforce its limited Draconian view of Christian ethics upon the country. Talk about Shariah law – clearly they don’t understand the concept of separation of Church and State.

Of course all the uber-right morons have done is given their opponents another stick to beat them with come November 2012 – they threw Grandma under the bus going on record supporting Ryan’s economic plan and now they’re on record throwing the rest of the women in the country under the next bus.

This bill is DOA when it reaches the Senate, and as I said at the beginning of this post, Americans are facing economic distress and this is what the GOTP spends its time on? You ran on a platform of creating jobs in 2010, do you really think 100 + bills seeking to eliminate a woman’s right to choose is going unnoticed? And what’s more, heaven help any of you when some woman you love is dying and some Neanderthal of a doctor – dressed in Papal gowns – refuses to save her life because the baby is more important. What kinds of Gods do you pray to that would require the life of the mother in order to prove some show of faith?

Who knows, since you’ve opened up this box of Pandora’s, maybe some future Congress will pass a bill allowing hospitals the right to refuse to perform prostate surgery in order to save a man stricken with cancer because it might interfere with his ability to procreate.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 14, 2011 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , , ,

No Waiting to get Gun, Must Wait 72 Hours in South Dakota to get an Abortion?

So, in South Dakota you can go out and buy a hand gun with no waiting period, but if a woman wants to have an abortion – doesn’t matter for whatever reason – she has to wait 72 hours, and sit through countless lectures from anti-abortion critics; if your wive, daughter, mother or any woman in South Dakota is raped and becomes pregnant, or who is the victim of incest and becomes pregnant, or might die … too bad no abortion for you, that is, not until you sit through the right-wing re-education training.

But, hey, look on the bright side, you can buy a gun without waiting …

So, big government is bad – according to Republicans – unless it’s limiting abortion?

Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, once the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade, SD cannot limit abortion. It is Federal Law, and that trumps state law, but when has that ever stopped the current crop of right-wing demi-gods?

It isn’t just the waiting period that’s troubling to me, it’s that woman wanting abortions in SD, on top of the waiting period, have to sit through hours of far right-wing lectures before being allowed

So, it begs the question, why can you buy a gun with no waiting period, but have to wait 72 hours to have an abortion? That’s right, there’s no waiting period on buying a hand gun, but don’t you dare have an abortion? There’s something wrong there.

Problem here is the state of South Dakota is trying to condemn any woman wanting an abortion, under the guise of “education”.

Why is it not OK for government to interfere in all kinds of things – according to conservatives – such as safety, environment, etc … but it is OK for it to interfere with abortion rights? This is another case of conservatives wanting their cake and eating it too. Either conservatives are for limited government, or they’re not, you can’t have it both ways.

Many on the right – excepting Sarah Palin, who couldn’t think of a single Supreme Court ruling she disagreed with – believe Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench, pure and simple. Of course, most educated people know and understand that the Judiciary – aka the Supreme Court – has had the authority to “legislate” from the bench – aka judicial review – since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which opens another can of worms about how conservatives will bemoan “legislating from the bench until the court rules in their favor as in the infamous Citizens United case; a horrible ruling wherein at least one – if not more – conservative justices (Thomas) should have excused themselves from hearing or ruling on it.

I think if someone wants to buy a gun in South Dakota they should have to sit through 72 hours of lectures from the far left-wing talking about the evils of guns, and alternative ways to defend yourself. It’s only fair. No one will be denying anyone’s Second Amendment rights, we’ll just be making sure they presumed gun owner is fully educated before making the purchase; that’s all.

1 Comment

Posted by on May 27, 2011 in Abortion


Tags: , , , ,

Santorum claims abortion is to blame for social security woes?

Grand Old Tea Party (GOTP) presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, during his latest trip to New Hampshire, was asked about the status of the country’s social security system in an interview on WESZ-AM. He replied the system would be in much better shape if there were fewer abortions.

While admitting the system has flaws, he says the real reason social security is in big trouble is there aren’t enough workers to support retirees. He blamed the lack of workers on the “nation’s abortion culture”,  claiming it’s that culture, coupled with policies that do not support families; that are denying America what it needs — more people.

Wow. Really Rick? America’s social security is allegedly in trouble because there have been too many abortions? How about maybe there isn’t enough tax being taken from those who can afford it? Maybe the fact the wealthy only pay social security on a small percentage of their income each year and yet draw full benefits when they retire has something to do with it? Why not require the top 2% of the population to pay its taxes, rather than continue to give it tax breaks? But on no, that would be far too easy; instead we have to appeal to the far right religious fanatics of the GOTP, and instead of offering solutions to a perceived problem we have to create excuses. Maybe you can help the GOTP take our country back to that simpler time when woman were men’s property, and were expected to simply stand bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen? Are there no serious conservative contenders for the presidential nomination? No, instead it appears we have another nut ready to be gathered into the Tea Party nest.

1 Comment

Posted by on March 29, 2011 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , ,

Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful?


The right wing’s lead banshee, Ann Coulter, used the murder of abortion Dr. George Tiller to attempt to claim that pro-life extremists are peaceful, and that Muslims are not. Not Muslim extremists, Muslims; All Muslims.

“Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful,” Coulter said.

In an attempt to justify her claim, she compared 9-11 to just “five abortionists” killed since Roe v. Wade became law.

“According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade,” Coulter said. “In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.”

A halftime score? I’m not sure how to take that analogy. We’re going to flippantly compare the number of abortions performed in the past 36 years, all legally performed, to the number of people murdered who performed abortions, and do so with a sports analogy? How characteristically feeling of you Ms. Coulter.

But wait, she’s not through. Coulter went on to tie all Muslims living in the United States, almost all of them patriotic, tax paying citizens to the terrorist responsible for the murders of 9-11.

“Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.

“So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.”

Isn’t it interesting that Coulter never uses the term, “Muslim Extremist”; she prefers to just throw all the followers of Islam into one big group. Much the same way Islamic Terrorists throw all non-Muslims into the same bag, or the same way Adolf Hitler and his thugs threw all the Jews of Europe into one group. I think this is very revealing in deed.

I also find it very interesting that Coulter claims only the five actual killings count as acts of violence by right to life extremists. In fact, there have been 22 documented cases of violence carried out by pro life extremists in this country. Now using your own twisted logic Ann, let’s see? Twenty two (22) acts of violence committed by right wing, pro life extremists here in the United States, and only two attacks by extremist Muslims in America, counting the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and then the 9-11 attacks. Now, who exactly appears to be more violent?

Coulter doesn’t just limit her attacks on Muslims however, but also goes after the largest Lutheran organization in America, as well as comparing Dr. Tiller to a notorious serial killer.

“Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer,” she said.

Ms. Coulter, like many right wing extremists seems to have forgotten that a woman’s right to an abortion is a protected right in this country. It’s legal. While someone may not agree with abortion, or like Dr. Tiller because he was performing abortions, he was not a serial killer, not was he an executioner.

Coulter continues her rant by questioning whether Tiller had a right to live.

She said, “The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?”

Ms. Coulter, inciting someone to commit murder would make you as guilty as the person who acts based on your words. When you make such a statement you are inciting others to act violently. And, oh by the way, who are you to decide who has an absolute right to live? While I may think you’re a right wing extremist nut job, I would defend your “absolute right” to live. Yes, even you have an “absolute right” to live.


Posted by on June 7, 2009 in Abortion


Tags: , , ,

President Obama Voted to Commit Infanticide?

What exactly is it with conservatives and their continued bogus, ridiculous, and hyperbolic talking point that President Obama supports “infanticide,” and the extravagantly wild claim that he “voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it?”

I’ll tell you what it is. It’s the ongoing irrational hatred of this President by the right-wing in this country. This argument of President Obama being for infanticide comes up about once a month, basically whenever the right-wing radio types can tie it to anything. And I do mean anything. The most recent attacks have surfaced because of the mini-controversy surrounding Notre Dame University’s invitation to President Obama to speak at its commencement, which incidentally is a long standing tradition at the school, a tradition to invite the newly elected President.

During a recent broadcast,  Rush Limbaugh attempted to revive the infanticide myth, “The truth is that President Obama, by virtue of his votes as a member of the Illinois Senate and as a member of the United States Senate, is perhaps the most anti-life — well, there’s no question — he is the most anti-life president we have had in American history.

“This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it. If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times.

“That’s — I mean, that, to me — I don’t know what — care what your position on abortion is, but now we’re not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide.”

Of course, once again, Rush is not only just stretching the truth, he’s bending it, twisting it and contorting it to the point that it in no way resembles what is true. Obama’s opposition as an Illinois state senator to SB1093 amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, was based upon the fact that the amendment was not necessary as the existing law already protected infants who were born as a result of an attempted abortion. Indeed, the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 states, “No abortion shall be performed or induced  when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion.”

The proposed amendment also attempted to redefine what protections should be given to a “live child born as a result of an abortion”. It stated, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.  All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”

The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 had already provided for such protection, “Subsequent to the  abortion,  if  a  child  is  born alive,  the  physician  required  by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the  same  degree  of  professional skill care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would  be  required  of  a  physician  providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a  pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.  Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly,   or   recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.”

As the proposed amendment did virtually nothing to change the state’s abortion law it must be asked why propose the amendment? Allegedly the amendment was necessary because babies which were live born were being left to die in Illinois. However, investigators with the Illinois attorney general’s office looking into allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment were unable to substantiate the allegations, but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law.

The National Right to Life Committee (the group from which Rush, Hannity, et al receive their info) claims that Obama “really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, ‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’ And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.”

This is as ridiculous an argument as Liberals wanted the United States to lose the war in Iraq, or that Conservatives hate the environment. If I am to believe the NRLC, and Rush, Hannity et al., I have to then believe that President Obama is a monster. That he is someone who would be capable of killing a child born alive from an abortion. Talk about extremism. This is political extremism at its worst, and because it is so extreme it removes itself from intelligent discussion.

Rush, once again, the self proclaimed “truth detector” is wrong; President Obama never, repeat never, voted in support of infanticide. He voted to protect a women’s right to choose, in the face of fellow legislators who it would appear were attempting to amend Illinois state law in such a way that as to give the unborn fetus the same rights and protections of a born child, thus negating a woman’s right to choose. Sometime, maybe you’ll do a little research before you pounce on something Rush. But then again why change your MO? Why change from being the GOP’s chief hit man? And you accuse the media of committing drive bys?

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 1, 2009 in Abortion


Tags: , , , , , ,