ACLU:

The American Civil Liberty Union announced today that President Obama’s decision to mandate coverage for birth control does not violate religious liberty.
The ACLU’s Alicia Gay warns that the “powerful lobbying arm of the Catholic Church” mistakenly claims that the HHS contraception mandate violates their religious liberty.
Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.

“The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t create a right to impose those views on others, including ignoring civil rights laws or denying critical health care,” Gay insists.

Somehow in the ACLU’s backwards world they think that the “wall of separation” between church and state is only for the church to not infringe upon the government. It is laughable because the founders’ clear intent was to keep government out of religion. It isn’t shocking, they’ve held this belief forever. If an individual wants to mention Jesus in a graduation speech they think it is the beginning of the end, but government forcing a religion to violate its own beliefs is A OK with this dangerous organization.

Just look at this sentence: “Individuals who choose not to pay for employees’ contraceptives, the ACLU counters, are forcing their beliefs on their employees.” So, according to ACLU illogic individuals who do not pay for other people’s contraceptives are somehow forcing their beliefs on others. But somehow on the same coin….the government forcing people who do not believe in contraceptives to pay for those that do are not forcing their beliefs on others. It makes your head spin.

Ed Morrissey is all over this:

The rights in the Constitution are not granted to American citizens because the government decided to offer them beneficently at their discretion. They exist in the document as a testament to our natural rights, part of our innate humanness, and are detailed in the Constitution as a bar to government’s overreach in trampling them. If the ACLU can’t figure that much out, then not only have they jumped the shark, they’ve nuked the fridge and made themselves entirely irrelevant except for the elitist crowd that cheers on tyranny. And that is exactly what has happened with this HHS mandate.

Rhymes With Right:

The ACLU seems to thinkt that if Catholic institutions are not forced to pay for the birth control, sterilization, and abortions of their employees that some substantive right is being violated. That is nonsensical – as nonsensical as arguing that a Jewish nursing home with a kosher kitchen failing to provide bacon and pork products to its non-Jewish employees is somehow an unlawful and illegitimate imposition of Judaism upon those employees.

The reality here is that the ACLU isn’t concerned about the First Amendment here. It is instead concerned about the perpetual extension of the abortion culture in America. As a result, they are willing to see the federal government require that those with moral scruples against abortion be forced to burn a little incense at the altar of Margaret Sanger – or be crushed by the instruments of the state in the same way that the ancient Romans sought to crush the early Christian community for refusing to make such sacrifices at the altar of the emperors.

This isn’t new for the ACLU. They have always been hypocrites when it comes to the first amendment, especially if it conflicts with the abortion agenda. Abortion has always trumped the 1st Amendment as the ACLU’s top priority.

Also see: PJ Tattler
The Barber Shop

(Marjorie Clifton at HuffPo) I am the product of 14 years of Catholic school and am a practicing Catholic, actively involved in the church all of my life. As a woman with a career in politics and women’s leadership, I have quietly worked within the church to make change and have cautiously offered my voice only when I felt it was essential. But, I can be quiet no longer.

You are welcome to speak out. It’s your Constitutional right. You are not free to push your beliefs on others by government law. That is against everything this country was founded on. Oh, and violates the portion of that same 1st Amendment regarding religion

Recently, the Catholic leadership came out in opposition to the mandate in our new healthcare law that all health insurance providers offer coverage for prescribed birth control, even for employees in some Catholic Institutions. But, let’s be clear about what the real issue is here. It is not about government controls, and it is not about infringement of our religious beliefs. It is about a church that has lost touch with reality. The leadership of the Catholic Church either is ignoring or is unaware of the disconnect between Catholic teaching and Catholic reality.

No, it is about government, and using the out of control force of government to make Catholic institutions, and other religious institutions, offer birth control. Also, sterilizations and the morning after pill. Ms. Clifton rationalizes this as “well, Catholics have sex, so, their health insurance provider should be not only forced to offer this products, but do so with a zero deductible.” So, the church is left with the choice of either offering the health insurance which violates their beliefs or dropping coverage.

Essentially, it boils down to people forcing their beliefs on other people. This is America. The religious institutions have the right, and the constitutional right, to offer insurance that adheres to their beliefs. The people who work for them have the freedom to go out and get their own insurance if they want free birth control and morning after pills. Liberals do not want anyone to have a choice. It’s their way or no way. They aren’t very tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

One has to wonder how the Obama admin. and liberals would react if the Muslim leaders came out against this decree.

Of course, these mandates are not direct: they require insurance carriers to offer the measures, but, then the religious institutions won’t have choice themselves. All are forced to offer birth control, sterilization, and abortion pills.

“Unless this rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences or drop health care coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so),” according to a letter from Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

He and other church prelates asked that the message be read from pulpits over the weekend.

“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law,” Naumann’s letter stated.

An Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains from reading the letter over the weekend, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Liberals constantly tell us about this mythical separation of church and state. Funny how all of a sudden the State is allowed to dictate to the church.

If this was supposed to be damage control, Susan G. Komen for the Cure proved Thursday that it has a lot to learn.

On a day when the breast cancer charity’s top official made the rounds with the national media, insisting the organization’s decision to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood wasn’t political, the firestorm only got worse. Top Democrats piled on; the head of the Komen chapter in Los Angeles quit; and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is giving a $250,000 matching gift to Planned Parenthood.

I’m not seeing what Komen did wrong; do you? I see that 22 Democrat Senators are choosing to whine about what a private corporation does with their money, without mentioning that PP is known mostly for abortions, not “breast exams”, and turning this political. Same with Bloomberg.

Brinker said there was broad consensus from Komen’s board over the new policies. Additionally, she said the charity was trying to refocus grants on providers that are able to perform mammography services rather than just breast screenings. Planned Parenthood does not have mammography equipment and refers women to providers for the service.

“We are the stewards of other people’s money, and we need to ensure that money is going to programs for women in the most impactful way,” Brinker said, echoing a statement she made on a YouTube video late Wednesday night.

I can see how that would upset liberals, who seem to expect Other People’s Money to be wasted, rather than being treated respectfully.

We also have a Memorandum pull of a story entitled “HOPE KILLS: Susan G Komen Foundation Would Rather Be Associated With A Handgun Than Planned Parenthood.” The author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, is whining about a Walther P22 that comes in pink, with part of the sales going to the Komen Foundation. Except, the gun is meant to protect the life of a woman. Liberals do not want women to have guns. Liberals want women to be raped, beaten, and die, apparently. The guns are also not performing abortions and killing unborn children, many of whom are female. Why do liberals hate women?

And then we have the whole “breast exam” thing. As Life News points out

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson revealed the main reason why the Planned Parenthood abortion business lost its funding. It doesn’t do mammograms.

“It was nothing they were doing wrong,” Brinker explained. “We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”

She added, later in the day on Twitter:, saying the money “will be invested in programs to serve low-income, uninsured and underinsured women.”

PP doesn’t offer mammograms. Let’s be honest, as Life News points out, they do do breast exams. But no mammograms. No PP abortion mills have the necessary medical devices on location. That said, the Left is not upset about Komen pulling funding to PP over breast exams, they are upset about Komen dissing the Left’s favorite abortion provider.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

What’s a Republican Feminist To Do?

Of course, we could ask “how many Republican women call themselves “feminists”?” How many have hairy legs and armpits? How many complain about “reproductive rights” and the government getting in the way of the ability to make a “choice” to kill an unborn infant?

In the winter line-up of Republican presidential candidates, a moderate pro-choice Republican woman has no choice. She might feel as if she were so, well, last century.

It is not news that the Republican Party has moved further right on social issues over the past few decades, but the 2012 campaign is a clear marker showing that the party has left legal abortion behind. All the contenders, past and present, adamantly oppose legal abortion, even the libertarian obstetrician-gynecologist, Ron Paul. Overturning legal abortion may in fact be the one thing they all agree on — so it doesn’t come up much in debates, speeches or interviews. But it is on their agenda.

What we see is that Liberals consider support for abortion on demand to be a bedrock of being a feminist. Are there “moderate pro-abortion Republican women”? Probably. Do they seem to obsess over the ability for someone to have an abortion if they so choose? Doubtful. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not obsess over being able to kill an unborn child simply because they became pregnant after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. Republicans, including women, refuse to be tied to labels and put in boxes.

By contrast, whatever he did in his personal life, President Clinton brought a sound grasp of women’s lives to the stump and to the Oval Office. The first bill he signed into law, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, was a huge gift to working women.

Clinton also had another gift for women: taking advantage of an intern young enough to be his daughter, receiving oral sex under his desk while he smoked a cigar. And we’ll keep this post PG rated by not discussing what he also did with a cigar. How’s that for having a sound grasp of women’s lives? If a Republican did that, he’d be branded a sexist and slapped with a sexual harassment suit. Oh, wait, Clinton was branded a sexist and slapped with multiple suits. If memory serves, Liberals were concerned with….destroying the women who filed those suits. I do love how Mz. Steihm casually dismisses the issue.

President Obama signed the pay equity act named for Lilly Ledbetter. His affordable health care act would make birth control more freely available.

It’s very interesting that Mz. Steihm would bring ObamaCare up in her post: we constantly hear from Liberals that they want government out of our health decisions, especially as it pertains to “women’s health issues”, ie, abortion on demand. They always fail to mention that they love government funding abortions so that people do not have to put out their money for an abortion after a night of casual, promiscuous, and unprotected sex. And that they love government regulations, laws, and court decisions that keep abortion “legal and rare.” But, then we come to ObamaCare: what other legislation passed in the history of the United States has involved the government more in “women’s health issues” than this one? Real health issues. We have the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will make decisions about payments and treatments. We have massive reductions in Medicare and Medicaid funding. Most women think ObamaCare is bad for their families. ObamaCare will drive up the costs for health insurance and care. And we have supporters and proponents of ObamaCare calling for women to have breast exams later in life, because it is a waste of money to have them before 50. Those “death panels” are still there, regarding life decisions. Unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will make decisions on health and cost.

That sure seems like government is getting heavily involved in “women’s health issues”, along with everyone else’s. One would think Liberals would be against government intruding on this issue. Alas, no, their only care is that government not place any restrictions on abortion on demand, even when it comes to later term abortion and requiring parental notification (of course, in the hypocrite world of Liberalism, they’d freak out if they weren’t notified about their own child). Daring to require a 24 hour waiting period or getting an ultrasound makes even the few rational liberals out there talk as if the legislation means women are going to be chained in a cell and forced to have the baby from their casual night of unprotected sex.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The indefatigable Steven Ertelt reports another outrage from the infanticide fanatics at Planned Parenthood. Apparently Planned Parenthood is advocating that families use the Thanksgiving holiday (and the upcoming Christmas break) as a day to push their ideas on abortion onto friends and family.

What could be more heartwarming? Friends and family, good food, and a little convivial conversation about killing babies? I mean, what is more fun to talk about around the Thanksgiving table than killing babies? Besides, remember how the Pilgrims were so concerned with killing babies? Yeah, so the discussion is a natural Thanksgiving Day topic, ya know?

As Ertelt says, the page on Planned Parenthood’s website is, “sure to upset millions of pro-life advocates who are busy spending the day thanking God for the gifts and blessings they’ve been given, especially the gift of human life…”

PP wants to help you for the holidays, you see? They offered a nice list of “eight easy steps” for pushing infanticide on family and friends for the holiday.

For instance, one of the helpful hints PP offered to drum up a great holiday discussion is to urge people to kill babies with disabilities.

How uplifting!

Tiny Tim beware, Planned Parenthood is gunning for ya!

PP’s webpage is also odd in another way. Whereas most people’s first assumption for a family-oriented holiday is that it should be a joyous time (especially if you are writing about it for public consumption), Planned Parenthood apparently sees Thanksgiving as a terrible, “stressful” time.

The PP site starts oddly with this: “Going home or getting together with relatives for the holidays is always a stressful time…”

Really? It’s not a wonderful time for family and friends? It’s just a “stressful time”?

I guess it should be no surprise that people that love infanticide are down on family even during the holidays, eh? What hateful, ignorant people are these? On Thanksgiving, only Planned Parenthood could be thankful for death.

We are faced with a difficult dilemma concerning Vice President Joe Biden’s outrageous comments about China’s one-child policy delivered in China this week.

On one hand we must either believe Joe Biden is a compete idiot, or on the other understand that he is OK with the fact that Chinese officials forced women to late term abortions and in many cases actually murdered already born babies to satisfy the one child per couple rule that the communist oppressors put into place years ago to curb the country’s population size.

Neither prospect is very auspicious for Biden or Obama.

While visiting Chinese students in southwest China, Biden raised the one-child issue

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

For decades China’s violent and controversial one-child policy has been the root of the murders of many millions of Chinese babies, many of them actually born alive. For Vice resident Biden to strain to tell his communist audience that he wasn’t “second guessing” this murderous policy is appalling.

This policy is responsible for the outright murder of many babies born alive in China. After authorities found that women gave birth in violation of the policy, these babies were killed in front of distraught parents. But this policy is also responsible for millions of selective-sex abortions where Chinese culturally favor boys instead of girls and aborted babies thought to be female. Chinese authorities also engaged in a whole raft of human rights violations such as forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

So, what is Biden saying here? Are we to assume he is too stupid to know of the murderous history of China’s one-child policy? And if we assume he must know this history, then we are forced to understand that he has no problem at all with these human rights violations.

In fact, this whole thing argues against the whole claim that Democrats are “pro-choice.” Yes, they often choose abortion, like the Chinese are, but the “choice” could also include keeping the baby. You see, there is a choice here. But by agreeing with China’s one-child policy, he’s agreed with taking away the “choice” in the matter because Chinese women have no choice! It is an authoritarian policy thrust upon them regardless of their needs and desires. Biden appears totally OK with that.

Of course, back here at home, his office tried to skitter out from under this major gaffe — a full time job for his office, to say the least. Biden’s office issued this statement:

The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable. He was arguing against the One Child Policy to a Chinese audience.

Unfortunately for Obama and Biden’s office, this does not square at all with what he actually said. Biden said he wasn’t judging the policy and only thought it was bad for economic reasons.

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney wasted no time condemning Biden’s foolish comments.

China’s one-child policy is gruesome and barbaric. Instead of condoning the policy, Vice President Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.

Another GOP hopeful, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also condemned Biden’s comments.

China’s one child policy has led to the great human tragedy of forced abortions throughout China, and Vice President Biden’s refusal to ’second-guess’ this horrendous policy demonstrates great moral indifference on the part of the Obama Administration. Americans value life, and we deserve leaders who will stand up against such inhumanity, not cast a blind eye.

GOP House Speaker John Boehner chimed in, as well.

I’m deeply troubled by the comments reportedly made by the Vice President yesterday regarding China’s reprehensible one-child policy, which has resulted in forced sterilizations and coerced abortions and should not be condoned by any American official. No government on Earth has the authority to place quotas on the value of innocent human life, or to treat life as an economic commodity that can be regulated and taken away on a whim by the state.

Romney and Boehner had it exactly right. China’s one-child policy is a barbaric, disgusting, condemnable policy that no freedom-loving American should condone in any way whatever.

Knowing little about former Utah Governor John Huntsman, except that he was hand-picked by Barack Obama to be his man in China, it was revealing to learn through his recent statements that he belongs to “the debate is over” crowd. The “debate is over” crowd never bellows louder than when it comes to global warming and evolution. They are the people who push fiction as if it were fact and then denigrate anyone who disagrees.

Huntsman revealed a major unawareness of current scientific data when he attacked fellow presidential candidate Rick Perry (TX-R) on his position on evolution and global warming during an ABC interview stating:

“I think there’s a serious problem. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the …

anti-science party, we have a huge problem … When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said … I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and, therefore, in a losing position.”

Huntsman’s statements are misleading and rife with misinformation. Huntsman misleads by stating that 98 to a 100 climate scientists support global warming, but leaves out the documented fact that some 33,000 scientists worldwide consider man-made global warming to be total nonsense. The carbon-credits scheme is proving to be a scam. Yet, Huntsman appears to be a man after Al Gore’s heart. Huntsman would do well to Google the article: GLOBAL FRAUDS: AL GORE & CHARLES DARWIN at:

http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=62.

On the topic of evolution, Huntsman joins the more strident “the debate is over” crowd as he personally “embraces” evolution. Even Barack Obama was quick to give a “shout-out to Charles Darwin on his 150th birthday.” Evolution is mere theory without empirical scientific data to support it. As a life-devaluing, God-denying, racist theory, evolution was readily embraced by Karl Marx, the father of Communism, who wrote that he was “a devoted admirer” of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Others who anxiously “embraced” evolution were murderous tyrant Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky — who fanatically persecuted the Christian church while claiming that Darwin’s ideas “intoxicated him.” Another avid fan of evolution was Soviet mass murderer Joseph Stalin who became a devout atheist after determining that evolution does not require conscience or morals. One politician of note who “embraced” evolution was Adolf Hitler who was an avid follower and wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that he believed in “natural selection” and the “survival of the fittest” as propagated by Darwin. Hitler’s reign resulted in the murder of some 6 million Jews as well as Slavs, Poles, Blacks, Gypsies, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled and other groups he deemed unfit to live.” (Excerpts from book: Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.)

Darwin’s theory of evolution became a political tool for murderous tyrants who used it as a mechanism to devalue life, justify racism by labeling various groups of humans as less evolved, and as a means to eradicate God so that the “state” could become god to the people. Avid American abortionist and purported mother of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, embraced evolution as an argument for abortions and the denial of care for America’s poor, sick, elderly and disabled.

Where evolution and Huntsman lose legitimacy is when both face the advancements of hard science in the 21st century. DNA proteins are providing evidence against the possibility of evolution and reveal that no species can “jump its DNA code” to evolve into another species. Even in his rudimentary analysis Charles Darwin wrote: “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed.” Evolution scientists themselves are abandoning the theory in droves and have gone so far to say, “That it ought not to be taught in High School.” Yet, Huntsman’s opponent did not take it that far. In what appears to be a balanced approach, Governor Rick Perry did say that both evolution and creation are taught in Texas schools because he thought students would be smart enough to decide for themselves. Even Charles Darwin professed serious doubts about the validity of his theory of evolution vs. creation and wrote that: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Charles Darwin. At least, Darwin got that one right.

This could shape up as a major battle between supporters of infanticide and pro-lifers in 2014. Pro-abortion forces will likely flood the Volunteer State with out-of-state money to defeat a referendum that may appear on the 2014 ballot allowing citizens to decide whether or not their state constitution really does have a special right protecting abortion.

This referendum is aimed at overturning a 2000 state court decision that read all sorts of “rights” into the Tennessee Constitution that had for 200 years never appeared there. The decision erased several state laws restricting abortion under the assumption that the state constitution had even stronger protections for abortion than does the U.S. Constitution.

The referendum will read as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”

This effort may count as the first state attempting a sort of local limit on the so-called rights imbued into the U.S. Constitution by the 1973 Supreme Court Decision Roe v Wade. But if this passes and the state legislature begins leveling new restrictions, those new restrictions could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of Roe v Wade.

We need to keep an eye on this one, folks. If the forces of abortion-at-will win this one it will put a quash on any other state that may want to attempt further restrictions on abortion in their own jurisdiction.

Liberals don’t just curl their lips at the sight of American flags. Because most Americans are Caucasians, they grant special privileges to those who aren’t. Because most Americans are Christians, they loathe Christianity. Because we speak English, they support bilingualism. Because we’re humans, they call for an end to the human race.

No, I’m not kidding. Peter Singer holds forth from atop the official soapbox of the liberal establishment, the New York Times, in a screed entitled “Should This Be the Last Generation?“:

Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

Singer’s musings are inspired by David Benatar’s “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence,” a nihilistic ode to human extinction that Singer calls “a fine book.”

Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

Plus ending the human race could ease neurotic guilt over the imaginary global warming crisis, because according to leftist fantasies,

the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

The natural conclusion:

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

The sort of grade school sophistry that liberals trot out to excuse aborting their own children is used to justify putting an end to the entire human race out of sheer misanthropic nihilism.

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

In the end, even Singer backs off from fully endorsing Benatar’s call for an end to the human race, but he pontificates that choosing not to snuff out humanity “forces us to reconsider the deep issues,” such as:

Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

Clearly the more sophisticated reader is expected to lean toward no, no, and no.

In addition to wanting us to doubt the value of human existence, Singer also favors extending abortion to toddlers and having sex with dogs. He is not incarcerated in an insane asylum, but rather teaches bioethics at Ivy League Princeton. Again: no, I’m not kidding.

No doubt these “moral” justifications for putting an end to human reproduction are familiar to Comrade Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren, who has suggested putting sterilants in the water supply.

Thank you Peter Singer, David Benatar, John Holdren, the NY Times, and the rest of the pointy-headed progressive intelligentsia for making it clear to anyone paying attention that although rank and file liberals may be misguided idealists, at the heart of liberal ideology lie madness, depravity, and pure evil.

On a tip from Scott. Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

This weekend is the one-year anniversary of George Tiller’s horrible murder, and of course, this means that the pro-abortion fanatics are out in force. This time, they’re complaining about states that require women to view ultrasounds before having an abortion. That complaint isn’t particularly new, but now, it’s being called emotional torture.

Staff members interviewed at three of the seven abortion clinics in the state estimated that 30 percent to 70 percent of women chose to see ultrasound images. But they said it was uncommon for women to be dissuaded.

It had happened occasionally, they said, when a sonogram revealed a multiple pregnancy or when a woman was already deeply unsure about her choice.

But a number of women at the Birmingham clinic, which was the site of a fatal bombing in 1998, said they simply did not want to subject themselves to images that might haunt them. “You almost have to think of it as an alien,” said Carmen, 28, who was there for her second abortion in three years.

Like other patients, Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.

“You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.”

This makes the assumption that all women take the time to think an abortion through, that they all know week-by-week how the baby is growing in their uterus, that they have received medically accurate information. This is suspect at best.

Take Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. Approximately one third of Planned Parenthood’s clients are girls under the age of 18. Just how informed are they expected to be? Not only do these girls usually have no clue whatsoever about what they are about to go through, they don’t usually have medically accurate information. Pro-life activist group Live Action gained fame from investigating Planned Parenthood’s willingness to cover up the sexual abuse of minors with their Mona Lisa Project. They’ve now started a new undercover investigation, The Rosa Acuna Project, to find out if Planned Parenthood is giving medically accurate information to their clients.

They have not done so.

The counselors give manipulative information filled with lies to clients who are scared or confused or unsure. Why? Because they don’t want women choosing to not have an abortion. Abortions are lucrative. Planned Parenthood doesn’t benefit if a woman decides to keep her baby.

And why would seeing an ultrasound before an abortion be emotional torture to a woman? Well, because most women aren’t prepared for the emotional roller coaster ride they’re about to go through with an abortion, for the anguish, regret, and guilt that many women feel. Many women aren’t prepared to confront the life they’ve just destroyed. An ultrasound forces them to confront that reality. Is it perhaps emotional torture because women are killing their children? Because women cannot bear to look at an ultrasound and see the life they are about to take away?

Bernard Nathanson is a prime example of this. Nathanson was once a pro-abortion activist who helped to found the National Abortion Rights Action League. NARAL was originally created to repeal abortion laws, and succeeded with the Roe v. Wade decision. Nathanson says he has performed over 75,000 abortions in his lifetime. However, with the advent of the ultrasound, he found that he couldn’t ignore the barbarity of abortions anymore, and became a staunch pro-life activist.

Ultrasound images are so powerful that Nathanson made two documentaries, The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason. The Silent Scream shows an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a baby eleven weeks after conception. Eclipse of Reason shows a late-term abortion being performed, and is even more horrifying. These ultrasound images were strong enough to convert Dr. Nathanson, the father of the pro-abortion movement still in action today. How would viewing an ultrasound be to an expectant mother who is confused, scared, and probably already feeling slightly guilty? Of course it would be emotional torture. She would look at that ultrasound and it would be like a knife going through her heart. It’s emotional torture because deep down, they know that they’re killing their child, and it’s heartbreaking.

Why would abortion advocates have such a problem with women being forced to view the ultrasound? Apparently, during first trimester abortions, women weren’t much dissuaded from the abortion because an unborn baby at, say, five weeks kind of looks like a little tadpole or something, and not like a baby. Once you start looking at second and third trimester abortions, however, the images are much harder for women to see. And regardless of when in the pregnancy the abortion takes place, women who are unsure about their choice are definitely swayed by viewing the ultrasound. The abortion lobby doesn’t want fewer women to have abortions, so making women view the child they’re about to kill doesn’t sit well with them — not because they care about the welfare of women, but because they don’t want to lose a potential sale. A woman who is already confused and scared and unsure about the choice to have an abortion who views the ultrasound is much more likely to change her mind than the woman who doesn’t see her baby first.

Deep down, their conscience will tell them that this is wrong, but they don’t want to admit that to themselves. That is what brings on the feelings of emotional torture. And it’s what pro-abortion activists don’t want women to know. The abortion lobby does not want women to be fully informed about the realities of abortion, because if women were, a much greater number of them would walk away. So pro-abortion activists try to keep women in the dark, while screeching that they’re only fighting for women’s rights.

But is it really pro-woman to keep women in the dark?

–

Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife.