This is just disgusting:
And this is the Number 1 reason I could never, and would never, date a liberal. Liberals see a potential life as a negative, as a hindrance to them, as something that will ruin their lives and, apparently, as potential evil.
They never stop to think that all life has the potential for good. Each new life has the potential to bring us someone who could find the cure for cancer, someone who could be the next great President, someone simply who could change the world for the better in their own small way.
Nope, for liberals, each new life has the potential to bring us rapist pedophiles. To them, life is a bad thing and it must be snuffed out through abortion. Not only that, but all success stories must also be snuffed out through censorship, so that others may not be brought the message of life and hope and love and potential.
Pro-abortion/”choice” liberals are some the most disgusting, despicable people alive. How anyone could look at life in such a cold-hearted, calculating and unfeeling manner is simply baffling to me.
Some comments from the second link with which I completely agree:
He puts a name/face to a “proposed abortion”. The fact that he’s made great achievements makes him even more of a problem for the “choice” (irony-alert) crowd. The anonymity of the child (see constant references to “the fetus”) marginalizes the life in their opinion. Of course, that logic is built on sand, but that’s all they have.
This reveals what those of us that stand for the unborn have known for a long time. That the term “pro-choice” is really misleading, we should call the advocates of abortion on demand, “pro-abortion” and in an absolutist sense. The only “choice” they will tolerate is the one that ends in the death of the unborn baby. I also blog for a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Whittier, California and Liberals want to close them down so the only alternative to a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is to get an abortion.
Also, it is truly sad that adoption does not even enter into the pro-abortion absolutist vocabulary. And if it does, it must include adopting to homosexual couples, even making pro-life adoption agencies close down that do not adopt to such couples. Yes, Liberals and by extension most Democrats see abortion as inherently good and seek to demonize anyone who thinks otherwise. Remember the abortion ad that called abortion sacred work?
Pro-death women believe they should have the right to decide what is best for their life, but they fail to admit the fact that their decision to take the life of the child they carry means they have taken the right of the unborn to be given life. It is the most selfish and cruel act a woman can commit against another human being, and they want to shut up anyone else who points out that they are horrible, evil people.
A woman has the choice to have sex or not, and if she becomes pregnant her choice is to give birth and keep the baby or to give birth and put the baby up for adoption.
When women have sex they don’t have to take the necessary preventative precautions because in the back of their mind they know that if they do become pregnant, they can just abort their baby. How does this line of thinking help prevent pregnancies? It is before-and-after birth control.
The essense of pro-choice is supposed to be choice: in the Roe v. Wade era, most people choose to carry their pregnancy to term.
If you are in favor of choice, you must be in favor of people opting NOT to abort.
If you want a woman to make a fully informed decision, you must let her know that people who could have chosen to abort opted to continue their pregnancy.
Let Tebow speak.
I’m not sure what all the Hullabaloo is about. The pro-murder crowd gets to spout their spiel; why can’t the pro-life folks get at least an equal opportunity to recognize one of the beautiful human beings they didn’t kill!
I often wonder which one of the murdered babies God had designated to discover the cure for cancer.
I know a woman whose husband was “missing and presumed dead” during WWII. She was left destitute, sickly and pregnant. Despite having no job and no other means of support, she carried her Son and delivered him on August 21, 1945.
Thank You, Mom.
It can’t be pro-”CHOICE” unless there are at least two options. If the pro-choice crowd is so violently opposed to Tebow’s story of life, then the pro-choice crowd should drop the charade and rename itself pro-abortion.
By calling themselves pro-choice they are acknowledging that there is an alternative to abortion that you can choose, but they only see one of those choices as “right”.
You have the right to choose whether or not to abort. If you abort we’ll cheer you on, but if you choose life we won’t congratulate you on your choice to try to raise your baby, we’ll demean and denigrate you for not killing it.
If every woman aborted her baby, where would we be?
Why is Matt and his family’s story of “Choosing Life” such a threat to these radical pro abortion groups? Power and cash. If more women choose life, they lose money and control. If fewer women choose abortion, they get fewer fetuses to kill. Their means (revenue) and their message (‘choosing life’ means ’stopping abortion’ and ‘making women sick’) must be absolute or like any other despotic propaganda, it puts itself in peril… the Tebow’s story exposes these radical pro abortion groups for the shams they are. Like that hockey stick graph is to Climategate, the Tebow’s story is to abortion… it debunks it as ’settled science’ on the progressive’s road to Utopia and must be told.
The ad should air.
Would it be a problem for the Progressives if Obama was making the ad and not Tebow? Stanley was young and pregnant. Her spouse was not around. Even in those days, women made the choice.
All the Progressives have to do is make their own ad. Find someone who has had an abortion (or wishes they had an abortion) and extol the virtues and great, life-changing experience it was. That should be up-lifting! (Am being sarcastic and pragmatic.)
In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg examines in detail the sorry history of the Progressives and their fondness for eugenics, racism and intolerance. It’s must-read history.
“You prim little Christian bitches call us murderers because you can’t imagine how a woman would choose to be anything else but a bible-thumping Donna Reed.” by Eve
No, you are called murderers because women such as yourself kill their own flesh and blood in their wombs in the name of pure selfishness. Why don’t you use contraception, two or more forms, and prevent pregnancies rather than use abortion as a birth control method after the fact? It doesn’t have anything to do with being Christian; it has to do with being a decent, loving human being who treats others like they would like themselves treated. I wouldn’t even be directing this comment at you if it wasn’t for the fact that your mother gave birth to you, so be grateful for those who choose to give life rather than take it away. And for your information many great and wonderful women who have made great accomplishments are also mothers; it isn’t a choice between one or the other – women can do both.
This is the same “compassionate” crowd of progressives that cheered When it was announced that Ronald Regan had alzheimers. They are not compassionate in the least. I myself am pro-life. My real stink is don’t use public monies for YOUR choice Eve. You can be filled with hate and rage. Your sad little red wagon to pull. I just will not enable you with MY money to snuff out a life. Democrats find it O.K. to kill babies but not terrorists or death row inmates. Can you at least try and get a little consistent. One is innocent and the others got thier day in court or CHOSE to be killers (terrorists). It shows how weak your argument is.
Peeps like EVE get very agitated and militant when you challenge their ability to legally murder babies – this is their big chance to experience the exhilaration of snuffing out a life. It makes them feel GOD LIKE – even though they don’t believe in God. Funny how “progressives” are really regressive when it comes to the innocence of American children.
The left say they are the party of science, yet science itself, via 3-D ultrasound, is proving everyday that fetuses are, gasp, ALIVE!!!
How do the NOW types reconcile the excess of 22 million young males in abortion-promoting China with caring about women?
It is pretty clear that one of the unintended consequences of the War on the Unborn has been the targeting of females for the death sentence. It is clear that the advance in ultrasound technology is both a blessing and a new evil.
Many babies are brought to term once the mother sees life. Unfortunately, a number of people use the technology for evil. – basic screening to eliminate life that doesn’t fit their lifestyle.
this kind of behavior demonstrates that there is a certain breed of “pro-choice” women who are not really pro-choice. if they were, they would encourage women to hear stories like this, and yes, very often choose life.
It’s a given that every time someone is faced with a difficult pregnancy (including but not limited to potential medical problems like Mrs. Tebow’s, Down’s Syndrome, various deformities and disabilities, conception through rape) and chooses to have the child, the pro-aborts are ALWAYS disappointed. They attack the parents for making a foolish, risky, and unrealistic decision. They don’t care the if the child turns out okay after all (like Tim Tebow) or if the child is still valued and loved by his family (like Trig Palin). They made the wrong decision, dammit, and they have no business parading that decision in public!
They’re angry because they know full well what they would do if they were in the Tebows’ or Palins’ shoes. For all of their yammering about compassion, they’re not terribly compassionate toward those they deem “inferior.” They feel entitled to a perfect child who arrives perfectly on their time, if at all. People who make diffferent decisions and are happy about it make the pro-aborts feel guilty. Even if the pro-abort has not had anything to do with an abortion, there’s still guilt. And nothing drives a progressive crazier than the feeling of moral inferiority.
They want to keep selling the idea that every abortion happens for a really good reason and if not for the destruction of some bothersome “clump of cells,” the woman and her clump of cells were doomed to a life of perpetual pain and misery. Things like medical problems, rape, developmental defects, etc. give the pro-aborts a trump card, i.e. nobody would want to have a child like THAT and you’re evil for even forcing such a horror on an emotionally fragile woman. Well, the Tim Tebows of the world pop even that balloon. What justification do they have now?
I don’t know any woman who has had an abortion who hasn’t been totally damaged by the abortion FOR LIFE. This is the truth. They NEVER get over it.
Why other women support this sort of life altering, unending trauma on other women (not to mention the killing of a human being) is beyond me. Women are brainwashed into thinking that having the choice to abort makes us “stronger.” It does nothing of the sort. It damages us forever.
How much safer would the world be if the feminist movement stood up for women?
Where is the National Organization for Women? Seriously?
Oh wait… they’re actually the National Organization for Abortion Advancement… I forgot.
Where is the National Organization for Women? Seriously?
Oh wait… they’re actually the National Organization for Abortion Advancement… I forgot.
Actually Chisum, it is much simpler than they. They are the National Organization for Whatever Liberal Men Tell Us We Are To Advance.
They oppose sexual harassment, unless it is a Liberal Democrat doing it.
They oppose oppression of women, but not from Muslims.
They are pro-choice on abortion, so long as you choose abortion.
“Progressives own the Holocaust, a fact they conveniently ignore today. Funny how they make a big stink about everyone else owning up to their history, but when it comes to them, they are exempt from their own rules.”
Actually, when the logical outcome of their policies literally demonstrates pure evil, they revise history. Hitler was a right wing fascist, don’t ya know. (See Goldberg, Jonah)
Women have abortions and live the rest of their lives regretting their decision, but even they are not allowed to convey this message in public. A woman was on The View one time speaking to this exact issue, and those ‘View’ women shut her down quick – they weren’t going to tolerate anyone stating in their forum that women actually regret making the choice to kill their unborn.
I’d just like to say that when a pregnant woman’s life hangs in the balance, it is her decision to make between her life or the life of the unborn child. Some do not make the choice and leave it to God, and others make the choice – I don’t really know of anyone who would think a woman choosing her life should be condemned for doing so.
Tim Tebow is a great role model for men and boys. I hope my son’s have his conviction and dignity.
For anyone to complain the ad should be censored is ridiculous and shows their contempt towards life and their determination to end life. IT is a sad day in America when it is controversial to stand up for celebrating life and family.
“…[L]ife is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically.” —Rush Limbaugh, June 5, 2009
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. So, the question is: Will Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, be the one who helps to return this country back to being a nation respecting the sanctity of human life by being one of a majority of Justices agreeing to overturn Roe v Wade, thus allowing the people of the United States of America to vote, in each of their respective States, on the legality of murdering babies?
Rush makes a pretty compelling argument that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may, in fact, be Pro-Life: All the Latest on Sonia Sotomayor
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, even more has been learned about Sonia Sotomayor and abortion. And what we have learned here is from a speech that she gave in June 2001, eight years ago, in which she commends liberal lawsuits on abortion, illegal immigration, and welfare reform. Here’s what she said. Now, I know they’re going to climb on me for saying this. She really writes poorly, and people are acknowledging this. There were a couple stories yesterday that it’s amazing how poorly written her opinions are compared to other appellate judges who are all great writers. In fact, it’s one of the trademarks of an appellate judge, Supreme Court justice, is their brilliant writing. So I’ll just read this passage from the speech of Judge Sotomayor in June of 2001.
“In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services money from taking on class-action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion, illegal immigration, or welfare reform. Commendably –” so she agrees with that “– commendably, I know Brooklyn law school’s clinical programs have redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation. These efforts and the volunteer efforts of other law schools, bar groups and lawyers and private law firms are not enough. The need is very great.” She is commending Congress prohibiting lawyers receiving federal legal service money from taking on lawsuits involving abortion. Now, what that means is that she agrees that federal money should not be used to pay lawyers who take on abortion cases. Now, what are we to conclude from this? Well, it’s just more confusion. It just leads to more confusion. Now, here is a woman with rich Latina, wise life experiences, by her own admission multiple times in her life, saying she doesn’t think it’s right for lawyers filing suits on abortion to get federal money to do it.
Now, that would make one tend to think that she thinks one of two things: That the government ought have nothing to say about it via their money, and secondly, if these lawyers want to go ahead and file abortion cases then find the clients to pay up. Don’t ask the government to do it. She is a devout Catholic. She is a devout Catholic. And, folks, I’m telling you the only evidence — and it isn’t evidence — the only evidence we have that she is pro-Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion, is that Obama has assured us. But Obama has said he didn’t talk to her and on her questionnaire that she submitted yesterday she said she wasn’t asked specifically about it. But yet Obama knows specifically, but she says she hasn’t said specifically or even been asked specifically. So I don’t know. I know a lot of you people think this is nuts because you think that Obama would not nominate anybody to the court who was not pro-Roe v. Wade or pro-abortion. But just in a general sense I could agree and understand that, but what if he doesn’t really know? What if he’s just assuming? If he knows, somebody’s lying about them having talked about it, because she says in her questionnaire that she hasn’t. Nor was she asked, directly or indirectly.
Now, it could well be that she’s told, you know, some colleague somewhere who told an Obama White House official, don’t worry about it. She didn’t admit that in questionnaire. She said that didn’t happen. I also saw in a news story that she has spoken highly of Justice Scalia, another Catholic on the US Supreme Court who, of course, thinks Roe v. Wade is horrendously bad constitutional law. Justice Scalia, in fact, in an abortion case — I’ll never forget, give you an example of just how great a writer and thinker Scalia is, but how all of these appellate judges, most of them are really, really good writers. You have to be, when you’re going to explain your opinion and so forth, you’ve got to be a good writer, not just in legalese, but in common sense language as well. And he said from the case that had just been decided, it was apparent to him that, “The mansion that is abortion rights law will have to be torn down doorjamb by doorjamb.”
Now, nobody talks that way. If you go to a party and you’re talking about abortion, nobody is going to say, “You know what, abortion’s like a mansion, and we’re going to have to end it by tearing it apart doorjamb by doorjamb,” but people do write that way. Good writers have a flair for writing unique things. Scalia does. It’s kind of like golf announcing on TV. I play golf and if I make par, I’ll say, “That’s four,” or “That’s a par,” but I will not say, “I authored a par.” Golf announcers will say, “Tiger Woods authored a par.” If Tiger Woods bogeys a hole, they will say, “And he puts a blemish on the scorecard with a five.” We who play golf do not say, after a bogey, “Well, there’s a blemish on my card.” We shout the F-bomb!
RUSH: From the New York Daily News today:
“Dawn Cardi looms very large in the life of Sonia Sotomayor. She constantly refers to her in speeches as her watchdog to make sure she is doing the right thing.”
And then there’s a web link here about Sotomayor sharing joy with her best friend, and the Daily News headline, this is from Friday, May 29th:
“‘Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor ‘Open,’ Will Follow Law on Abortion Issue, Says Friend.’ — Sonia Sotomayor has never made a major ruling on the issue of abortion –“
this we know,
“– and she remains mum about whether she believes in a woman’s right to choose. Sotomayor understands how difficult it is for a woman to decide whether to have an abortion and she knows women who have struggled with that choice, a longtime friend told the Daily News. ‘Years ago, we spoke about abortion, about how difficult a choice it is,’ Dawn Cardi, a lawyer and one of Sotomayor’s closest friends, told the News Friday. ‘It’s a very, very difficult choice, and (we discussed) how difficult it must be for a woman who has to make that choice,’ Cardi recalled. … Asked directly if Sotomayor believes a woman has a right to choose an abortion, Cardi replied, ‘She will follow what she thinks is the law on that, and her personal beliefs will not interfere with that analysis because my view of her is that she does not allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her analysis of legal issues.”
Now, now, now, she clearly does. She has said that her personal beliefs impact her decisions because she said that judges, appellate judges make policy. Now, the reason why I think something’s going on here, Sotomayor is a liberal. She faces no problem being confirmed. She’s got a majority of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a majority of Democrats in the Senate. Most libs are eager to tell you about their Roe v. Wade beliefs, their abortion beliefs. She would not. Her confirmation would not suffer had it been known over the years what her opinion on this was and yet she’s gone to great lengths to keep it quiet. She has gone to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to have it an open question. We know what she thinks of affirmative action. We know what she thinks of a lot of other public issues by virtue of her rulings and what she’s written. But on this one issue, we don’t know. And I would think that if, for example, she is pro-life, she’s probably calculating that could do more harm to her than by admitting she’s pro-choice. Am I correct? She’s dealing with liberals here that are going to vote on her. So no pain, no harm. She might get some grief about telegraphing the way she’s going to rule on an issue, and I know that no nominee comes out and says what they think about this. But she hasn’t said when she thinks about it ever.
My instincts tell me that it’s because people who are her friends on other issues might not appreciate what she really thinks about abortion. As I have continued to delve into this, as I have continued to investigate and research this and try to get to the quick, try to get to the soul of this, where she comes down on it, I have to say that there’s a better than 50-50 shot she’s pro-life. She’s Catholic. I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, don’t misunderstand, Puerto Rican Catholic, they’re devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there. It certainly could not hurt her with her own people for it to be known. It could only harm her with her own people if she’s pro-life and she’s staying mum on it, zipped lips.
So I can’t say for sure, but it sure seems to me that it’s — well, you know, I’ve said that life is such an important issue. If I learned, could be relatively certain and assured that she thinks Roe is bad constitutional law and is a pro-life individual, you’d have to stop and consider maybe supporting that. You can get past the racism and bigotry and other things, but life is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically. So I know it would be controversial, but I could see being in favor of this nomination were she pro-life. Certainly could.
I am still having a difficult time understanding the support from so-called ‘conservatives’ for Senator John McCain in his bid for the Presidency. If one looks at his record in an objective manner, one can see that he is not a conservative, and, in fact, has done more to stick his finger in the eyes of conservatives over his career than he has to help them, especially since 2000, when he lost the GOP Primary race to now-President George W. Bush.
I have posted many times before on Senator McCain about the many ways in which he is not a conservative in the Reagan Coalition definition of the ideology. In some of those posts, I have have highlighted Rush Limbaugh’s ongoing criticism of his liberal and antagonistic-to-conservatives credentials. Now, Bryan Preston at HotAir points out the latest pundits who are exposing even more of McCain’s actions against Conservatives.
NRO’s Andy McCarthy (HERE and HERE) and Laura Ingraham have highlighted something that Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have brought up many times in the past: Senator McCain’s efforts to silence Wisconsin Right to Life and their efforts to get out facts about pro-life issues during a campaign. Many social conservatives say they support Senator McCain, because he is “strong on pro-life issues”. Not exactly…
I think I’ve failed to make the most obvious, most important point on this: Judicial philosophy.
Sen. McCain may claim, to try to appease his critics, that he would appoint originalist judges. But the blunt fact is that such judges would be innately hostile to the “living constitution” — meaning they would be suspicious not only of Roe v. Wade but of schemes like campaign finance reform, a signature McCain issue. It is not for nothing that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were in the majority ruling against McCain’s side in the Wisconsin Right to Life case last term.
But it’s important to bear in mind that the Court invited more campaign finance cases in its decision. This issue is going to come up again.
So, let’s say Justice Stevens retires. Whom does a President McCain appoint to the Supreme Court? Will he be more inclined to nominate originalist judges or judges who would uphold the suppression of core political speech rights? They are, after all, not likely to be one and the same.
Based on what he did in Wisconsin Right to Life — choosing, when he was under no obligation to do so, to jump in on the side of speech suppression against the pro-life message — why should anyone believe McCain would appoint originalist judges?
As Bryan Preston and Andy McCarthy point out, John McCain did not have to file a brief against the Wisconsin Right to Life, but he chose to do so anyway. He was more concerned with his suppression of political speech than in protecting the unborn.
McCain went 0-3 in that one case, against freedom of speech, against right to life and against the two conservatives President Bush has appointed to the SCOTUS. McCain didn’t have to file an amicus brief in this case. He chose to, making himself a partisan in it. This is a conservative?
[ … ]
The problem with McCain goes deeper than what he says about taxes and what he says today about immigration that contradicts what he said days or weeks ago. It’s about the battles McCain chooses to fight and the enemies he chooses to make. McCain consistently chooses the wrong battles and makes enemies out of the very people he now expects to carry him to the White House.
There is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. People need to stop listening to the fast talk and start paying attention to what these fast talkers are actually doing.
How wonderful to be a law professor, dissecting the parade as it all goes by … without a care in the world about why it goes by in the first place!
My friends, how ’bout some straight talk about how it works in the real world? Let’s say you are considering some affirmative litigation, by which I mean, your hand is not being forced: You are deciding whether to sue someone because you feel you have been damaged, or you are deciding, though you are not a party to a particular dispute, whether to weigh in as a “friend of the court” (by filing an “amicus curiae” brief) because your interests may somehow be affected by the court’s decision. Rule 1: all affirmative litigation is a matter of choice. Rule 2: all choice involves weighing the competing interests and deciding which ones are more important to you.
Senator McCain was not a party to the dispute between Wisconsin Right to Life and the Federal Election Commission. He claims to be a stalwart right to life partisan. He is, beyond peradventure, a political-speech suppression activist. In the dispute, these two values were in conflict. This is unavoidable in life, in politics, and in law. But if you’re not a party to a particular dispute, you needn’t involve yourself — you get to sit it out and let the concerned parties make their case to a neutral arbiter. That is what most of us do when two things we care about are in counterpoise — we may offer a stray opinion here or there, but for the most part we stay out of the fray and depend on the court to sort it out fairly.
The other approach is to decide which value is more important to you and become a partisan. That is what Senator McCain did.
Kathryn’s law professor correspondent very helpfully pronounces that “Whether one approves of the campaign finance law or not, it affects pro-life and pro-choice groups in precisely the same way.” Yes, professor, thank you so much for that profound observation. One might just as uselessly say, however, that whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion (oops, sorry, I mean pro-choice), the political-speech suppression law (sorry, there I go again, I mean the campaign finance law) is equally oppressive.
Senator McCain’s choice was not: do I defend campaign finance laws as faithfully as possible, regardless of whose ox is gored, because that’s just the kinda straight-talkin’ maverick I am? Of course he’ll try to sell it that way, and perhaps get ten-thousand pro-abortion, pro-political-speech-suppression law professors to back him up. (I hear there may be a few such law professors available.) But McCain’s actual choice was: What’s more important to me, defending life or defending the suppression of political speech? He chose to defend the suppression of political speech.
He could have stayed out of it entirely. Or, choosing to involve himself, he could have filed an amicus brief in support of Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing for the urgency of permitting its message to be heard. He chose, instead, to support restrictions on speech for the benefit of incumbents — particularly, his co-crusader against the First Amendment, Sen. Russ Feingold.
That is a fact. Add all the context you’d like — it’ll still be a fact.
Pro-Life? No, Senator McCain is pro-STFU you stupid American citizens. He was in favor of this Pro-Life group shutting up and he has made it clear he wants anti-amnesty people to STFU as well.
The Left is in favor of suppressing free speech. John McCain is in favor of suppressing free speech. Put the two together and figure things out, people. Senator John McCain is no conservative.
I think this is the first time in history that Leftists, Liberals and “Progressives” have idolized a woman who was pro-life.
Via James Taranto in WSJ’s Opinion Journal Best of the Web:
On Friday we noted that the National Organization for Women had responded to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by ignoring it completely. But it’s not that NOW doesn’t remember the dead. A reader calls our attention to a statement on the organizations Web site titled “NOW Mourns Loss of Feminist Leader Judith Meuli.” We hadn’t heard of her, but it turns out she created “a line of feminist jewelry” and also donated a bundle to NOW:
Judith Meuli, 69, died at her home in California after a long battle against cancer. Meuli, a woman of many talents, edited the National NOW publication “Do it NOW” for many years with her partner Toni Carabillo (who died in 1997), was president of Los Angeles NOW, created with Carabillo a line of feminist jewelry that raised money for NOW and the Equal Rights Amendment campaign, and co-authored with Carabillo and June Bundy Csida “The Feminist Chronicles,” a detailed history of the modern women’s movement.
Several readers also called our attention to a LifeNews.com remembrance of Bhutto:
Bhutto was a member of an international pro-life women’s movement that understood abortion causes medical, mental health and other problems for women.
When Bhutto was the prime minister of Pakistan, she helped lead a delegation to the 1994 Cairo population conference that confronted abortion advocates looking to make abortion an international right.
“I dream . . . of a world where we can commit our social resources to the development of human life and not to its destruction,” she told the United Nations panel at the time.
No wonder NOW isn’t interested in Bhutto. A real feminist is one who is interested in feminine things like jewelry and abortion.
I have read a lot of leftists praising this woman as some sort of saint and martyr for human rights and freedom and democracy, when she was anything but. Considering these leftists are completely ignorant about the corrupt, power-hungry, Taliban-supporting past of this woman, I bet they are also ignorant that she was a pro-life, anti-abortion activist as well. heh
As Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters notes, imagine if this situation were reversed. Imagine if a pro-life advocate attacked a 69-year old abortion supporter, knocking them unconscious. And then imagine if, when interviewed, the pro-life advocate stated that the person got what they deserved. Do you think the media would ignore that? Neither do I.
But have you heard anything about this story? Neither had I, until I read Newsbusters this afternoon: Abortion Supporter Knocks 69 Yr. Old Pro-Lifer Unconscious, MSM Silent
On December 22nd a 69 year-old pro-life activist who was standing atop his automobile and protesting in front of the Hillcrest Abortion Clinic in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania was physically attacked by an abortion supporter and thrown to the ground with enough force to knock him unconscious. Doctors even worried for a time that the elderly man might perish from the attack. And here, nearly 7 days out from this attack, there aren’t any accounts of the attack in the MSM. As I searched for the story myself, I found two and only two Internet hits for it. Why the silence from the MSM? Can you imagine the MSM swarm that would have occurred if it had been a pro-lifer that attacked an abortion supporter? The cacophony would have been deafening if a pro-lifer had been the one to get violent.
The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property issued the first story to hit the net a few days ago. Also, a Catholic PRWire and media advisory from Catholic Online was released on the 28th. But the MSM has remained silent on the matter.
Here is the account from the TFP:
When Mr. Snell tried to counsel the woman, his words were cut short when the man became furious, jumped the fence and, in the words of Mr. McTernan, “leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground.” Mr. Snell hit his back and head on the pavement and was knocked unconscious.
His medical report outlines the extent of his injuries: “multiple trauma, right subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the area between the brain and the tissues that cover the brain), compression fractures of four vertebrae (T3, T4, T5 and T10), right scapula fracture and fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs.” Before doctors were able to stop the bleeding in his head, they even feared Mr. Snell would die.
An elderly man almost dies from an attack by an abortion supporter and the MSM is mum.
But, the receptionist at the clinic sure wasn’t mum!
When asked on the phone about the vicious attack, the receptionist at Hillcrest Abortion Clinic refused to give a recorded statement and angrily shouted: “He got what he deserved! He earned what he got!” She then hung up the phone.
Again, can you imagine the high dudgeon with which the MSM would have reported this story if it was the pro-lifer saying that an abortion supporter “got what he deserved” should one had been attacked like this?
And, on top of this indignity, the Harrisburg police didn’t seem to want to do their duty and arrest the attacker at first, letting the man go home after witnesses pointed him out as the assailant.