Another Blog From Neosecularist.com

Posts Tagged ‘women’s rights’

The Threat Of “Back Room” Abortions Does Not Justify The Continuation Of Legal Abortions; A Preamble To War…

In abortion, politics, pro-life, states rights on April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Socialist Bernie Sanders (Ind. VT) has entered the “war on women” charade with a very direct response to conservatives and the pro-life movement.  Says Sanders:

“We are not going back.”

What does Sanders mean by that?  He asserts:

“We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions…we are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control…we are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, [talking about the Violence Against Women Act]…further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women’s rights…”

That some women, once Roe vs. Wade is overturned and states begin to enact legislation to protect unborn children from abortion procedures, may feel compelled, driven, cornered into a “back room” abortion situation is not enough to legitimately or logically keep legal any procedure that unnecessarily kills an unborn child.  Women already have full access to birth control and contraception through the law.  In other words, no one is passing laws to prevent women from accessing birth control or contraception.  However it is not the prerogative or responsibility of taxpayers to pay the cost for women.  And if a woman cannot afford the cost herself that in no way diminishes, or amounts to, a lack of access.  Domestic violence is a serious issue, but do we really need another heavy, expensive layer of federal bureaucracy like the Violence Against Women Act, when these issues can be resolved more effectively, more efficiently at stale and local levels?  Like “hate crimes” laws, the Violence Against Women Act is another example of a needless, cumbersome, purely political, and politically correct, driven, ideological agenda that does nothing to prevent or stop domestic violence, but it sure puts a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of liberal organizations and lawyers groups.

Sanders continues his directness:

“The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.  But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive.”

And let this be a message to Bernie Sanders, the Democrat Party, and all liberals:

We, conservatives, are pushing forward as well, with our political war, fighting against the war on the unborn, the assault on the U.S. Constitution and American freedom, the personal attacks on our character, our beliefs and our morality (of which liberals can challenge – anytime).  And let us be very clear – we’re not going back either.  We’re not going back to a time when abortion on demand was politically impossible to counter; we’re not going back to a time when it was easy to break into America and long remain, and where liberals would provide to these criminal aliens a sanctuary and a protective status; we’re not going back to a time when liberals could erode and degrade America’s military and military might, prowess and reach anywhere in this world; we’re not going back to a time when liberals, through media outlets and through the public education system, were able to get away with denigrating American history, America’s true founding and the facts concerning our founding fathers, America’s Constitution, American freedom and liberty and what it actually means to be an American; and we are not going back to a time when it was easier for liberals to put America’s sovereignty in jeopardy.  We also are expanding the “battlefield”.  And we, not liberals, are, and will remain, on the political offense.  You (liberals) want to fight a (political) war with us (conservatives) – bring it on!  We couldn’t be more excited, more eager, more ready, more resolved to win.  And – we will win.  Wanna put a wager on that?

Advertisements

So – Women Whose Husbands Oppose Abortion Ought To Refuse Them Sex? Is That About Right?

In abortion, politics, pro-life, women on April 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Or - if you don't let me kill my unborn child, you'll never have sex with me again! (Photo: Women.com)

A new strategy is being deployed in the so-called “war on women”, which liberals insist is a “war on a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception, but in which we really know is code for abortion rights, and the right of women to kill their unborn children.  Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. Blogger, John Blumenthal, calls on all women who happen to be married to Republican men, or whose husband will vote Republican (and vote against Barack Obama) to stop having sex with them until they have a 180 degree change of heart and vote for Barack Obama, who is guaranteed to ensure the slaughter of unborn babies continues.  Some campaign strategy!  Is bowing to a woman’s “prerogative” to retain the right to kill an unborn child worth the price of “admission”?  And – how exactly does that work if the wife is a Republican and the husband is a Democrat, like Mary Matalin and James Carville?  Can anyone imagine Carville demanding Matalin support abortion or he won’t have sex with her?

No sex for/with Carville? Somehow I'm O.K. with that!

Blumenthal uses a non-sequitor in comparing abortion rights with a fictional play, Lysistrata, in which a woman withholds sex until the Peloponnesian War ends.  So, Blumenthal, who is a liberal, after-all, compares a very real war on unborn children to that of a fictional telling of a real war?  They say truth is stranger than fiction.  In this case the “truth” that liberals want women to deny their husbands sex until they support abortion is just as strange as the fiction that the “war on women” really has anything to do with a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception.

Arianna Nation (HuffPost) Appalled Federal Tax Dollars Going To Save Babies From Being Killed; Still Fine With Taxes Going To Kill Them

In abortion, politics, pro-life, taxes, women on April 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Killing unborn children in the womb using federal tax dollars makes the Arianna Nation coo with delight.  But a crisis pregnancy center that is using federal tax dollars to save unborn children from being killed in the womb angers and outrages, and mortifies, the very liberal, very pro-abortion, Arianna Nation.  There may be, however slight, some legitimacy to this “concern”, for you see, this crisis center, The Life Center of Midland, TX, according to the article, demands all its volunteers be Christians, and prove they are by writing in the church they worship at and the name of their pastor for a reference in their application form.  On their pdf. application form it does have a place with a “Church Reference”, but whether or not it is actually a prerequisite is dubious.  The Life Center, in its mission statement, does acknowledge its core Christian beliefs, and all applicant, staff and volunteers, are expected to adhere to that statement.  That The Life Center would make such demands, and receive federal tax dollars, is making liberals, and the Arianna Nation uncomfortable and queasy.  On the other hand – does anyone really believe liberals would be less appalled with using federal tax dollars to prevent a child from being killed in the womb if The Life Center did not have any religious language in its mission statement or on its application form?  Or, to put it another way, would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a pro-life atheist crisis pregnancy center was receiving federal tax dollars to save unborn babies from being aborted?  And even more provocative – would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a very religious, but very pro-abortion, pregnancy crisis center was receiving federal tax dollars and directing women to abortion clinics to kill their unborn children?

17 Reasons To Vote For Mitt Romney, Defeat Barack Obama

In abortion, NARAL, pro-life, right to life, states rights on April 21, 2012 at 6:44 pm

NARAL – National Abortion Rights Action League – knows what a Mitt Romney win in 2012 will mean to abortion in America.  The abortion rights group has studied the patterns of all fifty states with regards to abortion, both those states with pro-life leaning legislatures, and those states with pro-abortion leaning legislatures.  Seventeen states have been identified by NARAL which would immediately seek to ban abortion in their states once Roe vs. Wade is overturned.  Since a Romney win means an almost certain push to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and since NARAL knows conservative judges tend to be more strict Constitutionalists, and less activist, than liberals judges, any new appointment by a President Romney will be virtually guaranteed to support overturning the law that made abortion legal in America in 1973.  Any attempt to undermine abortion in America, and what is perceived (although not actually) a guaranteed Constitutional right, will be fiercely fought by NARAL and all pro-abortion groups, who consider laws banning abortion, abortion procedures and funding for abortion to be a “war on women”.  What we must keep in mind is that Obama will appoint liberal activist, pro-abortion, judges to the Supreme Court.  He has done it twice so far, with Sonya Sotomayer and Elana Kagan.  If elected to a second term, and given the opportunity to appoint another Supreme Court Justice, he will do it again.  NARAL has identified seventeen states ready to ban abortion.  A Romney win will bring those states that much closer to making that a reality.  Unborn lives are at stake in this election, as in all elections.  In this election, however, pro-life supporters have much to gain with a Romney win, and much to lose with an Obama win.  Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, all unborn children have their lives to lose, if their mothers so choose.  Romney winning the Presidency will set into motion the key events that will lead to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, allowing at least seventeen states to ban abortion.  Isn’t that seventeen very good reasons why we need to vote for Mitt Romney for President?