Archive for Anti-abortion

TOLERANCE? Feminist leader ousted from women’s organization for abortion opposition

Posted in Feminism, Feminism prolife, National Organization for (Some) Women, National Organization for Women, Subverted, Women's Movement with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 24, 2019 by saynsumthn

Feminist leader ousted from women’s movement for defending right to life

baby hands, conceived in rape, abortion, pro-life feminist

The National Organization for Women (NOW) claims it was the first women’s organization to pass a resolution in favor of liberalizing abortion. NOW founder Betty Friedan openly admitted it was men (Lawrence Lader and Bernard Nathanson) who persuaded her to make abortion part of NOW’s agenda. As a result, abortion drove a wedge within NOW’s membership, resulting in several pro-life members departing the organization.

 

NOW’s intolerance toward pro-life beliefs drives women away

In 1975, syndicated columnist Nick Thimmesch detailed the dismembership of Karen Lorene Ahern from a NOW chapter in Fresno, California.

“I was hounded out after they learned I was in the pro-life movement,” Lahern told Thimmesch. “They would change meeting places and times without telling me and hassle me at meetings. It’s ironic that I can’t be for equal pay and the other issues and still be against abortion.”

Image: Karen Lorene Ahern ousted by NOW for being prolife

Karen Lorene Ahern ousted by NOW for being prolife

Pro-life feminist on abortion: “These men have women right where they want them”

Pat Goltz joined NOW’s Columbus, Ohio, chapter in 1970 because she opposed the feminist movement being taken over by radicals with a pro-abortion agenda. She wanted to influence members toward a pro-life view.

Image: FFL Founders L to R: Pat Goltz (FFL Co-founder), Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher (former FFL Board President), and Cathy Callahan (FFL Co-founder) (Image: FFL)

FFL Founders L to R: Pat Goltz (FFL Co-founder), Rosemary Oelrich Bottcher (former FFL Board President), and Cathy Callahan (FFL Co-founder) (Image: FFL)

“I was opposed to them taking a stand in favor of abortion because I didn’t want them corrupting the feminist movement with that because it was so evil…. They weren’t interested,” Goltz told Live Action News.

Goltz became unpopular with NOW leaders after referring to the abortion industry as “baby terminators,” and calling abortion a “male chauvinist rip off.”

READ: Pro-abortion feminism has failed to address the injustices women face

In May 1974, Goltz told a pro-life audience (reports The Fairborn Daily Herald) :

The baby terminators argue that abortion gives the woman the right to control her own body, but when men are making millions of dollars from women trying to control their own bodies I say abortion is a male chauvinist rip off. When women call this rip off liberation these men have women right where they want them…

The feminist movement is dedicated to the gaining of rights for minority groups of which the unborn is unquestionably the most helpless and yet I was kicked out of the National Organization for Women (NOW) because I insisted on defending the right to life of these babies.

Image: NOWS Gag Rule

NOWS Gag Rule

SUBVERTED: How the sexual revolution hijacked feminism

No “right to choose” freedom of thought in NOW

Goltz’s conflict with NOW was detailed in December 1974 by commentator John D. Loften, Jr. “It is her outspoken opinion that ‘permissive abortion’ kills unborn young women and men and exploits their mothers, that has brought her into conflict with her sisters,” Loften wrote.

“In voicing her pro-life views, Ms. Goltz has run smack into official NOW policy, while not endorsing abortion does support the so-called women’s ‘right to choose.’ So, now, because she has exercised her own right to choose, and chosen to be against abortion, and because she has engaged in such subversive activities as passing out pro-life literature at NOW meetings and seeking to persuade new members to oppose abortion, tonight, an eight member committee will recommend that her membership be revoked.”

Loften scathingly wrote, “In a letter inviting her to her own burning at the stake, prior to the committee having already lighted the fire, Columbus NOW president Erica Scurr reminded Ms. Goltz (emphasis added):

As you know the ‘right to choose’ is a fundamental tenet of the policy of the National Organization for Women. Members may not speak publicly or act politically in contradiction to this policy and simultaneously maintain membership.

Loften, then inquired of NOW’s chapter president how NOW could remove membership based on Goltz’s beliefs.

Image: Pat Goltz NOW Lofkin Article

Pat Goltz NOW Lofkin Article

READ: 8 ways pro-abortion men pushed legalized abortion on America

Loften quoted Scurr’s response:

This is understood in belonging to an organization. If you’re going to belong to them, you’re going to have to support a policy. And if you don’t support them you’re pretty much going to have to keep your mouth shut.

Goltz told Live Action News that she was expelled from NOW after that meeting.

“They voted against me as soon as I left the room. They can’t defend a bad point of view. They have to stifle a good point of view,” Goltz said. “A lot of these women have had abortions and suffered terribly — so they have to get more and more to agree with them so it is justified. At that meeting I defended the rights of unborn women, and they didn’t like it.”

Goltz now refers to pro-abortion feminism as “passé.”

The founding of Feminists For Life

Banishment from NOW did not deter Goltz, who, in 1972, co-founded Feminists for Life (FFL) with Catherine Callaghan.

“Pat and Catherine were deeply disturbed because the women’s movement was caving into the demand of the patriarchy by allowing itself to be used by rich industrialists, the population control movement and the playboy movement….” wrote former FFL president Rachel MacNair.

“They believed that feminist organizations were failing to provide viable alternatives to abortion for individual women and abandoning them to abortionists and abortion referral services who would exploit their misery.”

“Pro-life feminism is the wave of the future and its time has come. People are coming to realize that abortion, which kills innocent children, is not in the best interests of women either,” Goltz told the Athens Messenger in 1974. Apparently many women joined Goltz in her view, as the paper was forced to admit that within just months of their incorporation, Feminists for Life had encompassed members in 30 states and several countries.

Thanks to the courage of many pro-life feminists like Goltz and Ahern, the pro-life movement has flourished.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Texas lawmaker files bill to abolish abortion and ignore Roe

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 20, 2019 by saynsumthn

On January 17, 2019 Texas State Representative Tony Tinderholt filed a bill to abolish abortion in the state. HB896 is an, “Act relating to prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an unborn child,” and it in essence tells authorities to ignore federal mandates and to protect the preborn child with the force of law as a born child.

Image: State Representative Tony Tinderholt

State Representative Tony Tinderholt

Texas is where the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which forced unrestricted abortion on demand began.

Roe was a pseudonym for Jane Roe a/k/a/ Norma McCorvey and Wade was Henry Wade, a Dallas district attorney who defended the Texas law, leading, eventually, to the Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade. The Roe V. Wade case and a companion case, Doe v. Bolton were heard by the Supreme Court at the same time. Plaintiffs in both cases, Norman McCorvey (Jane Roe) and Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) claim they were lied to, manipulated and deceived.

In 1969, Norma McCorvey became pregnant and after meeting pro-abortion attorney Sarah Weddington, on March 17, 1970 she signed the affidavit which catapulted Roe into being. The case was first filed in Dallas on behalf of plaintiff Jane Roe and all other women “who were or might become pregnant and want to consider all options.”

Image: Texas abortion law challenge 1970

Texas abortion law challenge 1970

At the time, in Texas, abortions were prohibited except to save the pregnant woman’s life. But, on June 17, 1970 the three-judge federal panel struck down the Texas abortion statute.

1970-Henry-Wade-Abortion-article-2

 

The case was brought to the Supreme Court on the basis that Norma McCorvey, the Roe in the case was raped and needed an abortion. The fact is that she was never raped and never wanted an abortion. In fact, Norma later became pro-life and sought to overturn the infamous decision.

Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, opened the door for abortion on demand by allowing the “health of the mother” exception” to be defined however the doctor chose.

Image: Sandra Cano was Doe in the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court abortion case

Sandra Cano was Doe in the Doe v Bolton Supreme Court abortion case

Testimony from Sandra Cano the Former Doe of Doe v. Bolton, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee June 23, 2005 showed that, like the Roe case, she never wanted an abortion.

Roe v Wade was argued for the first time before the Supreme Court on December 13, 1971 but because of new appointments to the Court, the case was reargued a second time on October 11, 1972 before the full nine-man court in, conjunction with Doe v. Bolton.

Image: Supreme Court at time Roe v Wade legalized abortion (Image credit: Oyez)

Supreme Court at time Roe v Wade legalized abortion (Image credit: Oyez)

The cases were decided January 22, 1973.

In 1998, McCorvey told marchers at the March for Life, “I lied and I’m sorry, I’ve repented, I’ve asked Jesus into my heart…”

Image: Norma McCorvey who was Jane Roe of Roe v Wade becomes pro-life

Norma McCorvey who was Jane Roe of Roe v Wade becomes pro-life

Neither McCorvey nor Cano lived to see abortion end.

ABOLISHING ABORTION IN TEXAS:

Image: State Representative Tony Tinderholt

State Representative Tony Tinderholt

Texas state Representative Tony Tinderholt’s measure would amend the Texas penal code for the “Rights of a Living Child” to read, “A living human child, from the moment of fertilization on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum. The proposal states that the preborn child, “[I]s entitled to the same rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws of this state to any other human child.”

The proposed law would add to the Government code the following abortion enforcement, “The attorney general shall monitor this state’s enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion. The attorney general shall direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”

The state’s local code would be amended to read that, “The governing body of a political subdivision of this state shall ensure that the political subdivision enforces Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court decision.”

It amends the penal code to apply even if the conduct [ the abortion] is “committed by the mother of the unborn child, the procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider, including a procedure performed as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by 160.102, Family Code; or the dispensation of a drug.”

IGNORING ROE:

Rep. Tinderholt’s measure clarifies that all changes apply only to acts committed on or after the measure takes effect and it requires that the State Constitution would override the Supreme Court decision in Roe as well as any other federal mandate:

Any federal law, executive order, or court decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution and is therefore void. The State of Texas, a political subdivision of this state, and any agent of this state or a political subdivision of this state may, but is not required to, enter an appearance, special or otherwise, in any federal suit challenging this Act.

To monitor the bill’s status, go here.

The measure follows calls for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to keep his promise to abolish abortion in the state. That promise was made to sixteen year old Jeremiah Thomas who passed away last year from cancer. Thomas’s dying wish that Texas abolish abortion made headlines and Governor Abbott told the dying teen, “Your wish is on the Republican Party platform positions, and it’s what we’re going to be pursuing this next legislative session.  And that is to outlaw abortion altogether in the State of Texas. And, so your wish is granted.”

 

 

Jeremiah’s parents, published an online petition to invite others to join Jeremiah’s wish by urging Governor Abbott to keep his promise by making abolishing abortion an emergency item for the State legislature.

Rep. Tinderholt was placed under protection following a 2017 attempt to criminalize abortions in the state, which resulted in several threats.

 

 

Measures to abolish abortion have also been proposed in Oklahoma. Senator Joseph Silk claims he was a “Typical pro-lifer,” until he “bumped into these crazy Abolitionists.”

Abolitionist and pro-life groups differ in whether incremental legislation is the correct strategy for abolishing abortion.

Senate Bill 13 (SB13), known as the Abolition of Abortion in Oklahoma Act, would equate abortion with homicide in Oklahoma, Sen. Silk claimed in the video below.

Shortly after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on abortion, pro-lifers attempted to pass a complete ban on abortion via a Human Life Amendment. Those efforts were sadly defeated. Since that time, pro-life groups have worked to pass incremental legislation to protect the child in the womb. Those measures include the Heartbeat Bill, 20-week bans, parental consent requirements, an many others.

Abolitionists via their Free the States campaign are seeking to convince local governing authorities to “Ignore Roe” and protect the child in the womb.

Complete abolishment of abortion efforts come as pro-life measures like the Heartbeat bill which would outlaw abortion as early as six weeks, when the fetal heartbeat can be detected, are being proposed in several states. As the public demands tighter restrictions on abortion, pro-abortion forces are growing desperate and working to open the flood gates for home or mail order abortion pills. At the same time, new appointments to the Supreme Court are causing both sides to ask whether Roe will stand in coming months.

The humanity of the preborn child in the womb is impossible to deny. Today, ultrasound images, fetal monitors, sonograms and abortion victim imagery testify to the fact that the baby in the womb is a developing person which should be protected under the US Constitution as any other person. The analogy to other past dark times in history, such as slavery, when humans were not granted their God-given rights motivate pro-lifers and abolitionists alike.

Both want abortion abolished, both say their strategy is best, hanging in the balance is the preborn child.

Atlantic reporter embeds with Millennial pro-life org: Live Action

Posted in Lila Rose, Live Action with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 2, 2018 by saynsumthn

 

Read more: here

Pro-life response to New York Times call to censor anti-abortion message

Posted in Media Bias, Media Matters with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

New York Times writer calls for Facebook to censor pro-life message

New York Times (NYT) writer Rossalyn Warren is calling for Facebook to censor pro-life news sites like Live Action News and Life News. In an opinion piece entitled, “Facebook Is Ignoring Anti-Abortion Fake News,” Warren failed to publish any credible research which would rebut a single story published by these two entities, but still thinks they need to be censored, based on her own personal bias.

The NYT describes Warren as a “journalist” but in this case, it is obvious that her pro-abortion bias has overruled everything else. Warren writes, “So far, Facebook and the public have focused almost solely on politics and Russian interference in the United States election. What they haven’t addressed is the vast amount of misinformation and evidenced stories about reproductive rights, science and health.”

To clarify, what Warren means by “reproductive rights” is abortion; what she means by “science and health” is not the truth about when life begins, when a preborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, or any actual science about the development of the baby or the harm effects of abortion on women. No, that is conveniently ignored by pro-abortion apologists like Warren. Apparently, in an opinion piece, one doesn’t have to any present facts.

Rossalyn Warren wants to censor pro-life news (image: Twitter)

The only reasoning Warren offers for censoring pro-life outlets is the fact that Live Action recently ran a series of articles on the documentary film Hush, made by pro-choice filmmaker Punam Kumar Gill, who refused to blindly believe what she was told about the harmful effects of abortion; instead, the film documents her investigation of the claims about a link between abortion and breast cancer. Warren failed to dispute in any way the film’s research, which was heavily sourced.

To Warren, Gill’s research is “fake news” — yet Warren offers absolutely no proof whatsoever for her conclusion. Yet, ironically, in her piece, Warren criticizes a 2016 blog story on late-term abortions for “failing to cite any sources or studies.”

Warren believes pro-life news sites (already being censored by Twitter) should now be censored by Facebook because they are ideologically driven (as if her views are not):

However, the incentive for the people who write content for anti-abortion news sites and Facebook pages is ideological, not financial. Anti-abortion, anti-science content isn’t being written by spammers hoping to make money, but by ordinary people who are driven by religious or political beliefs. Their aim isn’t to profit from ads. It’s to convince readers of their viewpoint: that abortion is morally wrong….

Well, it’s hard not to view this as morally wrong, once you’ve seen it:

Warren’s use of the term “anti-abortion” is interesting, and reveals Warren’s own ideology herself — as does her Facebook page

Here is Warren “lov[ing]” Polish women who strike against their country’s abortion ban:

Rossalyn Warren loves women who support abortion (image: Facebook)

And here is Warren when Victoria (in Australia) voted to limit protests outside abortion clinics, calling it “amazing news”:

Rossalyn Warren favors limiting abortion protests

To Warren, it’s a “big deal for access to abortion”:

Rossalyn Warren favors abortion rights

Here is Warren sharing a post from ideologically driven Think Progress, a left-wing news site that is radically in support of abortion. Warren clearly takes the pro-abortion position. (No calls from Warren for Facebook to censor Think Progress, by the way.)

Rossalyn Warren shares ThinkProgress’ pro-abortion post

And finally, Warren seems to think “more people need to see” an image of a woman who supports the nation’s largest abortion corporation, Planned Parenthood.

Rossalyn Warren supporting Planned Parenthood (image: Facebook)

Warren, while failing to state her own pro-abortion bias, wants readers to think she is actually concerned about “fake news.” But she gives herself away when she explains why she thinks Facebook should censor pro-life speech. It’s because, as she says, pro-life sites “dominate the conversation about reproductive rights on Facebook” with what she calls “dodgy studies and scaremongering” which she believes is “drowning out people’s access to credible, researched reporting on abortion.”

“Credible, researched reporting” on abortion? Apparently only groups that agree with Warren are considered credible — groups that promote abortion and are absolutely ideologically driven (though they agree with her). If Warren is truly concerned about ideologically driven “fake news,” as she calls it, then surely she should urge Facebook to censor other ideologically driven sites like Media Matters (where her sources originate), Think Progress, Rewire, or Guttmacher — a former “special affiliate” to abortion corporation Planned Parenthood. If we’re going to censor ideologically driven outlets, we may be censoring almost everything.

Warren insists, “These [pro-life] sites produce vast amounts of misinformation,” she claims, while admitting she got her information from the pro-abortion site Media Matters. She complains (emphasis added), “… stories [from pro-life sources] often generate more engagement than the content produced by mainstream news organizations, said Sharon Kann, the program director for abortion rights and reproductive health at Media Matters, a watchdog group.”

While Warren railed against pro-life news sites for using (in her words) “thinly sourced stories,” she did exactly the same thing, using a claim from pro-abortion staff member Sharon Kann at Media Matters as “evidence” of her claims. According to Kann’s LinkedIn page, the Media Matters “researcher” volunteered for two abortion facilities: Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the Emma Goldman Clinic. So she’s hardly unbiased. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Warren.

Rossalyn Warren attacks pro-life news sites in NYT

As you can see, Warren omits the fact that the videos (and their claims) posted by Live Action were actually made by an independent filmmaker, not Live Action; she says none of this, deliberately misleading readers.

Sharon Kann volunterred at Planned Parenthood abortion clinic (image: LinkedIn)

According to Kann (the abortion facility volunteer), “People on Facebook engage with anti-abortion content more than abortion-rights content at a “disproportionate rate…” And there’s Warren’s real problem.

In the minds of people like Warren and those at Media Matters, which openly admits it is a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” you’re only credible if you hold a favorable view of abortion.

But Media Matters, founded by David Brock, described by Politico as “the self-described reformed right-wing hitman who became a key figure in Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign,” is not impartial. Brock openly supported Hillary Clinton for president and has been described as “a prominent strategist with a web of liberal groups.” His secret meetings have included representatives from several pro-abortion groups, such as “Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice.”

Rossalyn Warren (image: Twitter)

Brock’s strategy for defeating his foes includes pressuring Facebook and other social media outlets to “adjust its model to stem the flow of damaging fake news on its platform’s pages.” Brock’s document claims that “journalists” like Ms. Warren will “weaponize our research products to… take action against… the extremists seeking to manipulate it.”

Warren believes that you and I should not have a say in which news we choose to read. Instead, “credible articles about abortion” should only come from “reputable news outlets like the New York Times….” But the “credible” New York Times isn’t so credible. NYT, among other media outlets, reported (without question) Planned Parenthood’s deceptive claims that they would retrain staffers after they were caught offering assistance to an undercover actor posing as a sex trafficker.

It was Live Action News — not Ms. Warren or the NYT — which documented how a Planned Parenthood insider revealed that Planned Parenthood’s “retraining” never happened. And it was Live Action News which also documented how Planned Parenthood’s lied about contacting local authorities about suspected sex traffickers — while the NYT and other outlets never bothered to fact-check.

Warren’s claim that pro-life news receives a higher view rate is not sourced, but if it is true, the reason is simple: people are trending more pro-life, and Warren is bothered by that, so she and her allies resort to cries for censorship — not of their own, ideologically driven “fake news,” but of news they don’t agree with.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Being Black and pro-life is neither ‘rare’ nor ‘ignorant’

Posted in Black Abortion Stats, Black Conservative, Black leaders on abortion, Black Neighborhood, Black Pastor, Black pro-life leaders, Black Victims, Black Women, Blacks oppose Birth Control, Blacks protest abortionn, Media Bias with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

These 15 women prove that being Black and pro-life is neither ‘rare’ nor ‘ignorant’

Michael Harriot, commentator for The Root,recently claimed that being a Black pro-life woman and seeking the protection of innocent Black babies in the womb is “rare.” But is it?

Harriott was writing in response to an interaction between Rep. Steve Cohen (D – Tenn.) and Star Parker, a pro-life Black woman, in which Cohen called Parker “ignorant” after she pointed out the devastation that abortion has wrought in the Black community.

Dem Congressman calls Black women Star Parker “ignorant”

“Since Roe v. Wade was legalized 20 million humans have been killed inside the womb of Black women. And then, on Halloween, Planned Parenthood tweets out that Black women are safest if they abort their child rather than bring it to term,” Parker said during a hearing on the Heartbeat Bill.

Planned Parenthood tweet tells Black women abortion is safer than birth

Parker also exposed the eugenic beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a known eugenicist who once gave a speech before the Ku Klux Klan. She also compared the Dred Scott decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Black slaves in America were not citizens, to that of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the entire country (essentially declaring that preborn humans are not persons and have no standing as such under the law).

Watch the interaction below:

Shockingly, Michael Harriot, who is also Black, chose to criticize Parker for her comments rather than research her claims about Planned Parenthood’s eugenicist beginnings. Instead, Harriot discounted Parker and other Black pro-life women, claiming that they are “rare”:

Star Parker, founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and a community activist, was asked to testify before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Hold up, I think I made a mistake in that previous paragraph. What I meant to type was: Star Parker was asked to testify before the House subcommittee because she is one of the rare black female Republican anti-abortion-rights activists. (No, I will not use the GOP marketing phrase “pro-life.” Who’s not for people living?)

Harriot then echoed Rep. Cohen’s derogatory remarks, saying, “People were shocked to hear him go after a black woman publicly like this, but here is the thing: She is kinda ignorant, though.” (Side note: Imagine for one moment what would happen if Parker were pro-choice and… oh, I don’t know… a white Republican male had called her “ignorant.” Media and social media — and likely Harriot himself — would explode with outrage.)

But Harriot’s claim about the rarity of pro-life Black females is simply wrong. The following Black pro-life women (in both the past and the present) are worth noting (and they weren’t all Republicans, Mr. Harriot):

1) Dr. Mildred Jefferson was the first Black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and was co-founder of the National Right to Life Committee. She once stated:

I became a physician in order to help save lives. I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow the concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxefrRccsbI

2) Fannie Lou Hamer was a civil rights activist who helped found the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. In 1964 she ran for Congress. Hamer was also a victim of eugenic sterilization, a program which Planned Parenthood’s founder (as well as those on her board) advocated.

Fannie Lou Hamer

Ethyl Payne quoted Hamer as calling abortion “black genocide,” writing in The Afro-American, “She was a delegate to the White House Conference on Food and Nutrition… there she spoke out strongly of abortion as a means  of genocide of blacks….”

Journalist Samuel Yette also noted Mrs. Hamer’s views in The Afro American – Apr 2, 1977, quoting her as saying, “It is still a society in which an injured man must show his ability to pay before getting hospital services, but his daughter or wife can be aborted or fed birth control pills, at public expense….” Yette then recounted how Hamer blasted conference organizers: “She responded with shock and outrage at the deception. “I didn’t come to talk about birth control,” she protested. “I came here to get some food to feed poor, hungry people. Where are they carrying on that kind of talk?”

A 1969 article published by the Free-Lance Star quotes Hamer as denouncing voluntary abortion as “legalized murder,” saying she “made it clear that she “regards it part of a comprehensive white man’s plot to exterminate the black population of the United States.”

Author Kay Mills quoted Hamer in her book as being vehemently against abortion. “Once Black women were bought as slaves because they were good breeders,” Hamer said. “Now they talk about birth control and abortion for blacks. If they’d been talking that way when my mother was bearing children, I wouldn’t be here now.”

Elaine Riddick

3) Elaine Riddick is a staunch pro-life advocate and vocal critic of Planned Parenthood. She was a victim of eugenic sterilization who led a successful crusade in North Carolina to gain reparations for the men and women (mostly Black) who were forcefully sterilized.

That NC eugenics program was supported by Margaret Sanger’s financier, Clarence Gamble, a director of Sanger’s American Birth Control League (which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood).

In 1947, Gamble called for the expansion of North Carolina’s state sterilization program, saying that for every feeble minded person sterilized, 40 more were polluting and degrading the bloodlines of future generation with their defective genes.

Research from North Carolina’s Winston-Salem Journal reveals a long history of abuses in that state’s sterilization program — abuses that Gamble consistently glossed over. According to the Journal, “Gamble wanted sterilizations to increase rather than decrease, and increase they did.”

Riddick testified before the North Carolina State Legislature about her experience, tearfully saying, “They cut me open like I was a hog.” She told lawmakers that her only crime was being poor, Black, and from a bad home environment. Riddick’s horrific story was recounted in the documentary Maafa21, which chronicles the history of eugenics and the founding of Planned Parenthood:

4) Dr. Alveda King is the niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn for Priests for Life:

5) LaVern Tolbert is a former Board member of Planned Parenthood who now opposes their agenda:

7) Day Gardner is president of the National Black Pro-Life Union:

8) Judge Cheryl Allen is a Superior Court judge for the state of Pennsylvania. She has said, “Most people tend to believe that Planned Parenthood is in the African American Community to help, but they are not there to help, they are there to make abortion more accessible to black people….” (Source: Interview on His Place TV)

Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen

9) Rep. Mia Love is the first Black Republican female elected to the U.S. Congress from the state of Utah:

10)Barbara Howard is the Florida State chairwoman for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). She has stated,.  “Recently, some black preachers finally came out not against abortion per se, but merely against the location of Planned Parenthood centers in black communities. It seems the murder of blacks is only a consideration for black preachers or other leaders when they are killed by white or Hispanic cops…. So who will stop the cold-blooded murder of millions of unborn black children?”

Barbara Howard

11) Rep. June Franklin (D-Iowa) is the only African American representative in the Iowa legislature, and said in 1971, “Proponents… have argued this bill is for blacks and the poor who want abortions and can’t afford one. This is the phoniest and most preposterous argument of all. Because I represent the inner-city where the majority of blacks and poor live and I challenge anyone here to show me a waiting line of either blacks or poor whites who are wanting an abortion.”

Rep. June Franklin (image Maafa21)

12) Dr Ashley Harrell of Black People Against Abortion:

13) Catherine Davis is a founding member of the National Black Prolife Coalition:

14) Dr. Freda M. Bush is an OBGYN and president of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health:

15) Obianuju Ekeocha, founder and president of Culture of Life Africa:

All the Black pro-life women from both political parties would make an exceedingly long list — and the truth is that the pro-abortion media makes little effort to highlight them.

Tragically, the real “ignorance” here is not found in those who denounce abortion’s impact on the Black community. It is found among members of the media who imply that Black pro-life women are “rare.” It just simply is not true.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

GOP tax plan recognizes baby in the womb as a human being

Posted in Republican with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

| (From Live Action News)

The co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus has labeled a 529 college savings plan for an “unborn child” in the GOP tax plan a “back-door attempt to establish personhood from the moment of conception.” Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) criticized the wording in a November 2 press release, issued shortly after the plan was released by the House. The move follows a change by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to define human life as ‘beginning at conception.’

According to Politico, the GOP tax bill “would allow expectant parents to start putting away money for college and private school tuition, wading into the battle over when human life begins.”

The proposal defines the ‘child in utero’ as, “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development” and reads:

UNBORN CHILDREN ALLOWED AS ACCOUNT BENEFICIARIES.—Section 529(e) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) TREATMENT OF UNBORN CHILDREN.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual under this section.
‘‘(B) UNBORN CHILD.—For purposes of this paragraph—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero.
‘‘(ii) CHILD IN UTERO.—The term ‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’’

NBC pointed out that the bill’s terminology “mirrors a section of the 2004 Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted after the murder of Laci Peterson, who was pregnant.”

In response to the news, Paul McLeod, BuzzFeed reporter for Capitol Hill, tweeted, “I’m reading this as anti-abortion wedge. If an unborn child can be a beneficiary, that makes them a legal person, so how can they be killed?”

Paul McLeod Tweet on GOP Tax Bill Tweet

Following release of the bill, abortion advocates went ballistic.

Their fear is that if it can be established that the preborn child in the womb is a person, it could lead to overturning the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which forced abortion on the nation.

NARAL on GOP Tax Bill Tweet

“On its own, I find it a despicable play to lay the groundwork for “personhood” bills and ending abortion rights,” Calla Hales, manager of A Preferred Woman abortion clinic in Charlotte, North Carolina told Bustle.

“Naturally, you’d expect me to say that as an abortion provider. As a tax paying citizen, I’ll frame it this way: Frankly, it’s fraud. A potential life cannot have assets. It cannot work, earn money, or open a bank account (or have one opened for it). … I find it logically impossible and incredibly unethical to fiscally account for a fetus,” Hales added.

Planned Parenthood, which gets over half a billion dollars a year from taxpayers, expressed its opposition to the move as well, telling CNN that defining a preborn child in the tax code would end up restricting access to abortion.

“It is absurd that House Republican leaders would use a tax bill to try to advance their agenda to undermine access to safe, legal abortion,” Dana Singiser, Vice President for Public Policy and Government Affairs at Planned Parenthood Action Fund told CNN.

Planned Parenthood, whose CEO was hired for her political organizing skills (not her health care experience, because she had none), has a record of Medicaid fraud, covering for child sexual predators, selling aborted baby parts, and chose Halloween to tweet an outrageous and eugenics-style message to the Black community that abortion is safer for women of color than childbirth. (Incidentally, Planned Parenthood’s founder was a known eugenicist who once gave a speech before the Ku Klux Klan.)

 

“Even in the tax reform debate, Republicans could not resist including offensive provisions to appease an extremist minority, ” Rep. DeGette wrote, “The tax code is no place to define what constitutes an ‘unborn child.’ What’s next, giving a Social Security number to a zygote?”

But Mallory Quigley, communications director for the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, disagreed, telling NBC News that the measure is “a small increment in the momentum that we’re building to ensure that one day every child is welcomed and protected under the law. We hope that it stays in the House bill and that it stays in anything the Senate puts out.”

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Abortion app profiles and tracks pro-life advocates: can you say stalking?

Posted in Pro-choice mocking with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 14, 2015 by saynsumthn

The concept of reproductive rights advocates tracking pro-lifers is now out in the open with a new App from the pro-abortion founder of the Daily Show. Abortion supporters are often critical of pro-life websites that expose the horrific things they do. So, an App which alleges to “track” or “profile” pro-lifers should receive criticism from the media, correct? Wrong!

Liz Winstead launches Hinder

This summer, radically pro-abortion comedian Liz Winstead launched a Tinder parody App to “track” abortion opponents. Winstead operates the website Lady Parts Justice and her disrespectful anti-Christian and pro-abortion views make her a favorite speaker for Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Hinder APP

“It’s like a hook-up app, but it focuses on all the sexist a–holes tirelessly fighting to crawl up in your vagina,” Winstead said when she introduced the game in a Steve Jobs-like presentation this fall, according to the NY Daily News.

Later adding, “It’s simple: Uterus begins with you.”

You can just type up your state and Boom! Hinder will pull up all the orgs that are in your area, your town or your vagina,” she says in the video which the abortion blog Reality Check described as “fake” writing:

    “Of course, this is all satire. Winstead’s impersonation of Steve Jobs is just that: fake. The video is merely poking fun of the way presenters reveal new technology or ideas among a large audience of curious onlookers. The crowd was edited to whoop and holler at the most opportune moments.

    “But the app is real.”

Winstead spoke to Mother Jones about the “Hinder vision” explaining how she came up with the name, “It’s about people who are hindering access to reproductive justice. And since it’s birth control- and reproductive rights-centric, we thought, “Why not ape a traditional hookup app?” she said.

Hinder Ap abortion

A description of the App on the Lady Parts Justice website says it will expose “anti-choice douchebags with a swipe” and emphasizes that it “tracks” opponents of abortion so they can be “exposed.”

“Tired of searching for Mr. or Ms. Right, only to find Mr. or Ms. Right-wing nutbag? Hinder is an exciting new app that helps you keep track of all the unhinged anti-abortion zealots right in the palm of your hand! Just read, swipe and share! Letting people know about craptastic extremists has never been easier! Left or right, any way you swipe it, these creeps need to be exposed and with Hinder now you can!” it states.

According to the “Daily Show” founder, Apple initially rejected the pro-abortion APP, claiming it violated the company’s prohibition on defamatory, offensive, or mean-spirited content. She said they had a change of heart after the Huffington Post published this article about the APP and pointed out the the same rule Apple cited in rejecting the app also states that “professional political satirists and humorists are exempt from the ban on offensive or mean-spirited commentary.”

The App allows users to swipe Left where they are taken to a “donate” button or to swipe Right where they can share the information they read. Listed among Hinder’s profiles is a doctor who is truly giving women a choice by allowing them the option to reverse their abortions. Dr. George Delgado has successfully reversed several abortions, but, that appears to be something Winstead and Lady Parts Justice abhors – making his profile a favorite:

George Delgado Hinder

Click on Illinois and the profile for Pro-life Action League executive director, Eric Scheidler pops up:

Eric Scheidler Illinois Hinder

Hinder profiles also include 2016 presidential candidates like Senator Rick Santorium, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Governor Bobby Jindal, and Governor Scott Walker among many other politicians. However, it would have been more shocking if Winstead had profiled the dangerous abortion and Planned Parenthood doctors or clinic staffers who injure, kill, rape, or commit despicable acts of violence on children instead. But that would require that she take an honest look at abortion which she has no intention of doing. Such a list was published in a recent Saynsumthn post feel free to share!