I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.

I agree, of course, with Jenkins about the intolerance of abortionistas and that they really aren’t about “choice,” but ALL about abortion. I also agree with her about the need for more Tebows in this world.

One thing with which I will take issue is her statement about “potential life.” If we are having a conversation about abortion, we are already talking about REAL lives — vulnerable and precious preborn children that will be either killed or allowed to live. Thus her tired argument about the state having “no business putting its hand under skirts” falls limp. We are talking about whether a woman should have the “right” – after she makes the choice to allow someone else under her skirt – to pay for someone pretending to be a doctor, make a defenseless baby the victim of a “mistake” by allowing the child to be torn apart with medical instruments and discarded as “waste.”

Otherwise…take that, NOW!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Multiculturalism is the dream state of the extreme left, not just in the U.S.A. but worldwide. From the pointy-heads at university, to the self-congratulatory oafs in Brussels and Washington D.C., these leftists sternly warn us all that any assumption that one culture is somehow better than another is “racist,” or at the least gauche. Everyone is the same, they say and you are a creep to think otherwise.

And they are simply wrong. Some cultures are better than others. A recent BBC report proves my nay saying of multiculturalism is right, too.

On Jan 7 the BBC posted a report on the increase in child sacrifice in Uganda where so-called witch-doctors are increasingly killing children in faux religious practices in order to bestow good luck on adults.

The BBC reports noted that one witch-doctor told them that he had “clients” that “regularly captured children and brought their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits.”

Additionally the story related that the Ugandan government said that such murders are increasing as reported by the country’s “Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce” head. Doesn’t the fact that Uganda even has an anti-human sacrifice taskforce say something very clear about where Uganda’s culture stands on the ladder of righteousness?

And what was this rise in murders of children blamed on? Capitalism, naturally. Absurdly the BBC and the Ugandan government peg this rise in crime to capitalism.

…the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The fault is not that prosperity and development is rising. The problem is that these people’s backwards, savage culture sees nothing wrong with killing a child or two in order to increase their fortunes.

Many African nations still practice slavery, abduction, child prostitution, as well as human sacrifice and have done so since anyone can remember. So, it isn’t the intrusion of capitalism and prosperity that has driven this increase in such crimes against humanity. It is their endemic culture.

Murdering children for “good luck” isn’t just a neutral and different cultural choice. It is evil. Their culture is bad and should be shunned by the civilized world and actively fought against.

Despite the rapturous claims of multiculturalists everywhere, all cultures are not equal, all cultures do not offer something good to the world. Some are evil and deserve to be destroyed. It’s just that simple.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

United Press International is reporting that abortion rates rose five percent in Illinois in 2008. Illinois doctors performed 47,717 abortions, the most in five years.

The state Department of Public Health reported 47,717 abortions in 2008, the latest year for which it has figures. In 1998, there were 49,403.

There is a law on the books that could bring this number down, of course, but extreme leftists and infanticide fans in the state have stalled its implementation over and over again. A Parental Notification Law for teens 17 and under was passed in 1995 and the left has been fighting it in court ever since. So far, every attempt they’ve made to have it declared unconstitutional has failed, yet each year they continue to find pliant, anti-constitutional judges to once again declare it “on hold” until its legal status can be “reviewed” and determined.

Unfortunately, last year was no exception to this rule of extra legal judge’s actions and hours after the law was again cleared for implementation, a Cook County Circuit Court judge halted the law. Left-wing, anti-constitutional Judge Daniel Riley bowed to the pleas of the un-American ACLU and put a hold on the law.

Sadly, one of the reasons our abortion rate is so high is because some of the surrounding states do have parental notification laws so teens from those states cross state lines to kill their babies in Illinois in order to take advantage of the lax laws here.

So, once again a new year dawns but the same old question remains. Will Illinois infanticide fans finally give up their bloodlust and allow this perfectly proper and constitutional law to go into effect?

Let us hope that 2010 sees this small victory for life to at last prevail.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I’m curious if Obama would back the mother up on this one, being a supporter of letting abortion survivors not get any medical attention and be left to die and all.

At least one politician is willing to take on the abortion and feminist lobby and have this loophole closed. The Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, is supporting the bill. This bill has no reason to not be signed into law, none whatsoever. But since this is apparently not the first time that this has happened, it’s a sad commentary on how rabid the abortion and feminist lobby is. Feminists are so insane over abortion, that anything that makes them feel even remotely threatened gets them to start hyperventilating. It’s bad enough that there’s not even protection for babies who are actually born. I fail to see how being born, yet still attached by the umbilical cord, means that the baby is not a separate being and therefore, can be murdered by the mother with no consequences.

Care to enlighten us, Jessica? I’d really love to hear the feminist take on this.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

CNS News did some investigating, and Ed Morrissey came up with this analysis:

At least ostensibly, this is an unfunded mandate on the states, which run the exchanges. What happens when no insurer in the state offers abortion coverage? At the moment, 87% of all abortions are purchased outside of third-party payers, so this is not an academic question. Do the feds intend to shut down an exchange that doesn’t offer an abortion plan? Or do they expect the states then to cover abortions instead?

… Once Congress stops re-enabling the Hyde Amendment, the mandates in Reid’s Section 1303 will force the federal government to supply the coverage for abortion where state exchanges have none. It will give the federal government an entree into broader health-insurance offerings, and that will have one ironic effect: it will crowd out those few private insurance plans that offer elective abortion coverage. Where Stupak’s opponents insisted that his language would create a “price signal” that would encourage private insurers to abandon abortion coverage, this would all but guarantee the same result, as private insurers would get undercut by the federal plan that would come into play.

This is nothing more than a mandate for federally-funded abortions. How long would it take a court to make that same determination? I suspect that Planned Parenthood and NARAL already have their legal counsel preparing for it.

It’s not exactly a surprise that the health care bill would include funding for abortion. Feminists have been howling about the Stupak amendment, the abortion lobby has been furious. Liberals were bound to cave in to their demands, and they were bound to try to hide it from the federal public. It is typical of liberals. And it’s infuriating to anyone with any kind of morals or respect for the sanctity of life. It’s bad enough that abortion is celebrated as some kind of right in this country, like it’s glorious for a woman to be able to go and kill her baby. Feminists in particular revel in it, like it’s some kind of sacred cow. Apparently, you have to be a member of the “I <3 Abortion" club in order to be a feminist in today's world. There are currently about 1.3 million abortions performed a year, and this isn't good enough for feminists. They not only want abortion to be free and legal, they want it to be paid for by Americans whether they like it or not. It has to be taxpayer-funded.

It's important that we all understand this. It's not good enough for feminists just to have abortion be legal and freely accessible. Any woman who wants to can get an abortion. And there is already $300 million a year in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood. There's plenty of federal funding for abortion, but feminists always want more. It isn't enough for abortion to be legal, it isn't enough for it to be federally subsidized. How much do they want? Does every single abortion performed need to be taxpayer funded so that any woman who wants one never has to pay for it out of her own pocket? It's a disgusting state of affairs. Half the country is morally opposed to abortion. But liberals are a special group of people. If they believe in something, then everyone must be for it and it must be federally mandated and subsidized. If they don't believe in something, then no one should believe in it and it must be totally banned. And so, thanks to this mental outlook and the carping of the feminist/abortion lobby, we are now looking at forcing half of the people in this country to fund something to which they are virulently opposed.

Burn up that switchboard today. You can find contact information for your senators here.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Last week Mary Fitzgerald argued that climate change is a feminist issue on the basis that population control is a way to prevent the situation spiralling out of control. And, she posited, this could be achieved by giving more women more autonomy over their own bodies, through improved access to contraception and abortion.

I’m not going to get into the arguments around whether population control is a good solution to climate change. Others have already done so; George Monbiot’s piece barely more than a month ago, for this newspaper, is a great place to start.

Ensuring all women have full reproductive freedom and reproductive justice is a necessary goal in its own right moving towards a more equal and just world. I get that it might be tempting to hitch this issue to climate change, which has so much political capital.

I thought she wasn’t going to get into that issue, which she discusses for two more paragraphs after the first three? Anyhow

But Fitzgerald is completely right that climate change is a feminist issue. Everyone stands to suffer if climate change is allowed to spiral out of control, of course, but a gender analysis of both the impacts and causes of climate change shows that globally women contribute less to the problem and yet are likely to be hit especially hard.

Poor people are likely to bear the brunt as the climate changes and 70% of the world’s poor are women. According to one estimate, 85% of the victims of climate disasters are women. Another study found 75% of environmental refugees are women. (Statistics from the Women’s Manifesto on Climate Change).

Gotta love the source of the study. Here’s a clue for you, Ms. Jesse McAbe: you enact all your crazy global warming plans, and the women in the poor countries will suffer way, way, way more.

After some more quibbling about how this is a feminsta issue, we end with

So, yes, climate change is a feminist issue; women are on the front lines of climate change impact and need to be part of creating solutions. And women all over the world are in dire need of access to full and real reproductive justice. But linking the two by advocating population control as a solution to climate change isn’t the way to achieve either of these aims.

Only in Liberal World can we link access to abortion around the world to globull warming. Sigh.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

At the last minute Representative Bart Stupak (D, Mich.) was successful in getting Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership to approve an amendment that would prohibit federal spending on abortion added to its nationalized healthcare bill passed and sent to the Senate over the weekend. But a senior Democrat says that the Stupak amendment will be stripped from the bill if the Senate returns the bill for approval.

Of course, the only reason that the House healthcare bill was passed out of the House at all was because of the Stupak Amendment, still left-wingers in Congress are vowing to strip the final bill of one of the only measures that appeals to moderates.

Far left Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, Fla.) has vowed that the anti-abortion amendment will be gone by the time the bill comes up for a final vote after the Senate debate. Pro-abortion activist and Democratic Congressman from Colorado Diana DeGette has been passing around a letter to her far left colleagues vowing not to vote for a future healthcare bill that does not include abortion funding. She has announced that 40 House Democrats have signed her pledge.

The truth is that the House bill has bare support and without the Stupak Amendment it couldn’t have passed.

However, the vows of abortion advocates in Congress also proves another thing, here. It proves that “no” doesn’t always mean “no.” The Pelosicare version of Obamacare now says no abortion funding, but that is meaningless the next time the bill comes up for a vote. Congress may pass a nationalized healthcare system that does not include abortion funding but that doesn’t mean anything to a future Congress. Once healthcare become a federal matter, any future Congress can change the rules anytime it feels like it and slide abortion funding right into the rules. Maybe in the middle of night on a Saturday… just like Pelosi did to pass the bill this time.

And therein lies the problem. No matter what this bill says now, the matter is not and can never be settled. Federalized healthcare will be a permanent political football used to solicit votes from favored special interests all the way until the day that the federal government is bankrupted by its onerous financial burdens. No abortion funding may be the rule today, but next time they just might get it through.

It’s all because no leftist idea ever dies. It only sits quietly until another push secures victory. No never means no to a leftist.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For Constitution Day this year at Sacramento City College Associated Student Government (ASG) President and student Steve Macias arranged for a group named Genocide Awareness Project, an anti-abortion group, to participate on campus in the Constitution Day activities.

The group was approved for participation by the ASG and set up its booth at the appointed time. And then the world came to an end. Pro-Infanticide groups such as Planned Parenthood set up their own, countering booths the next day and left-wing hatemongers in the student body immediately began to circulate a recall petition to have Mr. Macias removed from the Associated Student Government leadership.

There is also some speculation that this insane, un-American recall effort being visited upon Mr. Macias is being tacitly approved of by the College adviser overseeing the ASG.

Even the local press tried to pile onto an attack of Mr. Macias. The SacCity Express originally reported on October 13 that Macias presented the anti-abortion group under a false name when he submitted the group for the vote of the ASG board. On the 26th the paper printed a retraction admitting their “mistake.”

On his FaceBook site, Mr. Macias also reports that one of Sacramento College’s professors has engaged in a nasty email exchange with the student, too. “Why Do these teachers feel that it is there[sic] role to put us students down?” Macias asks. “I am deeply offended that an instutution[sic] that taxpayers pay for and pay to attend would allow this individual to clearly descriminate[sic] against people of faith. Calling Christianity ‘make believe.’ is unacceptable dialougue[sic] from Teacher[sic] to student. Especially when you seek out and attack the student.”

Amusingly, with her quote on the matter, ASG Vice President Debbie Dixon proved that her parent’s money is being sorrowfully wasted on her failed education.

“I am highly offended, I have rights, just as they have rights to not be offended!”

Sorry Debbie, dear, but there is NO “right” not to be offended. The Constitution safeguards political free speech but it does not safeguard your right “not to be offended.” No one has a right not to be offended because such a right would preclude everyone else’s right to free speech in the first place. After all, what one person feels is right and good to say, someone else somewhere will find offense contained therein. So, dear, dear, lil’ Debbie, no one has a right not to be offended. But, I do have to say, I am offended by your ignorance.

So, what we see with this dispiriting case is typical of the distempered left. All these caring, civilized, open minded, more tolerant lefties are in full attack mode trying to shut down the free speech of people with whom they disagree… as always. Sadly, that’s the fascist, Obamaesque sort of actions we are coming to expect from the extreme left and the bubble ensconced, pointy-headed, ivory tower dwellers in academe, isn’t it?

**UDPATE** 11/9/09

College launches attack campaign on student body president over pro-life group’s display

ADF letter: student officer was simply respecting group’s constitutional rights

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Sacramento City College officials after the president of the Associated Student Government was subjected to an illegal recall election for refusing to censor a pro-life group on campus.

College officials targeted Steve Macias for retaliation after they attempted to censor the speech of an off-campus pro-life group that ASG had already voted to allow to participate in a campus event. Macias refused to censor the pro-life display on the grounds that doing so would violate the group’s First Amendment rights. The officials and ASG retaliated by subjecting him to an illegal recall election.

Full news release, quotes, and related media resources available at the following link:

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3397

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,

the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.

If communism and Nazism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and anti-human fantasies?

In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.

Hat tip: The Blogprof. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post