It’s sometimes difficult to discern whether someone is merely ignorant on a political issue or if they are generally stupid and no amount of information given to them will actually get them to learn. Those on the Left will usually be ignorant no matter what, but stupidity reigns supreme because they continue to believe what they do despite the information provided to them by conservatives.
And seemingly, Bill Maher is among those who were merely ignorant on the issue of abortion, as he explained in a recent segment of his show that he was unaware both that Europe was more restrictive on abortion than the U.S. is and that most people who call themselves pro-life are actually women, rather than men.
I say “seemingly” because he’s had his “Real Time” show for nearly 20 years and, as a 66-year-old man, has been involved in media since the early 1980s, when he appeared on Johnny Carson’s and David Letterman’s shows (not to mention he definitely had political opinions from before that time as well).
My point being that I really doubt he’s only come to learn this recently. You’re this involved in the political world (albeit through commentary) for this long and only now you are beginning to hear things from the other side? Either he always did and would always ignore them, or he really was living in a Leftist bubble all his life.
At any rate, Maher said “I learned things this week… that are pretty basic things that I did not know about abortion. Like in Europe, the modern countries of Europe are way more restrictive than we are or what they’re even proposing! If you are pro-choice, you would like it a lot less in Germany, and Italy, and France, and Spain, and Switzerland. Did you know that? I didn’t know that.”
What he’s referring to is that Germany, France and Spain all have abortion limits set at 14 weeks into the pregnancy, while Italy and Switzerland have their limits at 12 weeks. Here in the U.S., Democrats shriek about even the mildest of restrictions to abortion and argue that it would be “unfair” to have limits at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Maher continued: “I learned most people who are pro-life are women. I did not know that. Most abortions are from… mothers, people who have a kid… And I thought this was interesting, most abortions now – even when you go to a clinic are done with the pill. The pill. And pills are easy to get in America. So, you know, for the people who say we’re going back to 1973, we’re not. That’s just factually inaccurate.”
A couple things to say here. First, don’t think I didn’t catch that “most abortions are from… mothers, people who have a kid” bit that was clearly trying to be woke and claim men can get pregnant too. It’s not “most” of the abortions being from mothers. It’s ALL of them. Only mothers can get pregnant because only women can get pregnant and mothers are all women.
Second, regarding the “going back to 1973” thing, that’s just fearmongering from the Left to scare dumb women into thinking they will be forced to get risky, unsafe, life-threatening (for the mother, not just the child) abortions and that Roe allows them to get “safe” abortions. It’s a load of crap, all of it. For starters, overturning Roe doesn’t even get rid of abortion nationwide. The matter goes back to the states. Red states, hopefully, would eliminate abortion altogether, but blue states will continue to have it. And if an evil woman from a red state wants to kill her baby because she’s a selfish whore, she can go to a blue state to kill the child.
Of course, overturning Roe would only be step 1 in eliminating abortion nationwide, as we should be a country (and world, but country comes first and is easier) which not only disallows abortion but outright shuns it as it should be. Girls should be taught to not wantonly have sex with whatever is drunk enough to screw them and subsequently getting pregnant. They should be taught that life begins at conception because that’s the moment where two different DNA codes merge to create a unique one. Boys (at the appropriate age) should be taught not to act on their sexual impulses and temptations. Boys should be taught to be men of honor who will abstain from sex until he marries a woman who is also willing to abstain from sex until marriage.
Notice that I didn’t mention that girls should be taught to love their children, because such a thing comes naturally. The women who are pro-abortion are unnatural. They were taught to hate children and see them as nothing but a burden in their lives, and for the unborn, as nothing more than parasites.
And beyond coming to hate their children, they come to hate themselves. Not sure if you’ve seen the following image, but it depicts a person who either deeply hates herself or is being extremely overdramatic:
That sign indicates a deep level of self-hatred. Of course, the message falls a bit flat given that she’s wearing a mask because she fears dying of the largely non-lethal Chinese coronavirus, but the point remains. Only someone who hates him or herself to a notable degree would be willing to have that kind of sign at a Roe protest.
If they hate themselves, how can we expect them to not hate their children? And the thing about hate is that it has to be taught. The Leftist has to be taught that white people are evil, black people are blameless and victims, men are oppressors, etc. That’s why they want crap like CRT in classrooms, which only creates more and more Leftists who hate other people and most importantly themselves.
In any case, there’s more to that segment, as he had guests, one who was seemingly more pro-life and the other who was staunchly pro-abortion and was fuming the entire time (not to mention spreading disinformation like “interracial marriage” is next to try and make as many of their favored demographics fearful and ticked off enough to incite violence against pro-lifers), but this article is long enough as it is.
Again, I’m not believing for one second that Maher only became privy to this information recently. People had to have been telling him, in some form or fashion, about stuff like that and he had to have either ignored them altogether or countered that it was just “right-wing talking points.”
The fact is that only SEVEN countries in the entire world allow for elective (no reason) abortion after 20 weeks: The U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Singapore, China, North Korea and Vietnam.
Not exactly the best crowd to surround yourself with.
That abortion exists altogether is a nightmarish thing. Make no mistake, Roe v. Wade is the single worst decision the Supreme Court ever made. Dredd Scott may have led to the Civil War and Plessy led to the need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but neither led to the genocide of nearly 64 million babies in 49 years, neither led to the death of nearly 20 million black babies in 49 years, and neither led to over 1000 babies being aborted every day in the U.S.
And yes, just because Roe has been around for nearly 50 years doesn’t mean crap. Roe is not “settled law” like conservative justices were cowardly made to acknowledge in their confirmation hearings. First of all, it’s not law. Only the Legislature can write and pass laws. Supreme Court cases are merely decisions as to what the SCOTUS of that time believes to be constitutional. But the Constitution does not say abortion was fine or legal anywhere. Furthermore, Plessy v. Ferguson, the decision which led to the “separate but equal” doctrine, was around for 58 years before it was overturned.
If Dredd Scott and Plessy were overturned, as they should’ve been, so can and should Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Obergefell v. Hodges (the gay marriage case), etc. Evil should not be the law of the land and no Supreme Court case is ever “settled.”
If America wishes to see God’s favor and be able to sincerely say “God bless America” it must destroy evil wherever it is found. One such evil is in Roe v. Wade.
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
In what is a seeming attempt at “owning” pro-lifers, commie actress Bette Midler suggested on Twitter that “all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.”
In other words, she is telling women, namely pro-abortion women, to NOT spread their legs as they often do and have sex, because this apparently would be detrimental to pro-life men.
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but you won’t hear me complaining about this instance of Leftist illogic.
Naturally, this comes following the Texas Heartbeat Act which protects the unborn beginning at six weeks gestation, when the heart usually begins to beat. Because women usually don’t find out that they are pregnant around this time as well, this bill pretty much effectively bans abortion.
And unlike similar pro-life, heartbeat laws which can easily be ignored by activist judges and pro-abortion law enforcement (including Leftist DA’s), the Texas heartbeat law allows individuals to report violations of that law and sue the abortionists as a result. This means that the power to enforce this law doesn’t have to rest on a state government which might be full of activists who will ignore the law for their ideologies, but rather, on We the People, particularly pro-life people to actually do something about abortion.
Basically, this bill is an important first step in overturning the criminal and disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 which has led to a holocaust of the unborn. Which is precisely why so many Leftists are so uppity about this law, including Bette Midler.
Still, that she would encourage women to abstain from sex as a “punishment” is utterly hilarious to me and quite the self-own.
For the most part, pro-life men aren’t going around sleeping with every woman they can find. If anything, men who sleep around so much would much rather abortion be widely available, since they wouldn’t want to be “burdened” with the responsibilities of fatherhood. Pro-life men tend to be Christians, and Christians tend to view sex in the way God does, which is that it’s something only a man and a woman ought to do when they are married, not before or outside of it.
The funny thing is that Bette Midler isn’t the only moron to suggest women don’t have sex with men in “protest” to a heartbeat bill. Back in 2019, when Georgia passed a similar heartbeat bill, equally-as-stupid actress Alyssa Milano called on women to go on a “sex strike” because “we just cannot risk pregnancy” “until women have legal control over our own bodies.”
Naturally, I’m inclined to argue that women have legal control over their OWN bodies, not the bodies of others including their own children, but I don’t care to argue with someone who said this back in 2019.
The reason for pointing this out is that this seems to be one of at least two arguments Leftists sometimes make regarding pro-life bills (yes, they make a slew of other ones, but I want to talk about these two specifically because both arguments are actually beneficial to society).
They make the self-defeating argument that women should abstain from sex, as we just talked about. But they also make another argument that, frankly, I can’t help but agreeing with 100% and believe would be a benefit to society: that men shouldn’t legally be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then abandon her. That “if she has to stick with the pregnancy and the consequences of it, then so should he,” as I hear liberals put it.
Every time I see this on social media (not that I frequent them all too much anymore) from a liberal who makes this argument, I tend to reply with something akin to “deal”. In essence, completely agreeing with the premise.
Though they obviously make these arguments for the wrong reasons (as they would still prefer both to have sex and not have to “stick” with the pregnancy), I definitely won’t stop liberals from inadvertently making arguments which help improve society.
Indeed, women should be practicing abstinence until they get married (same for men). This is the Christian view of sex and I won’t complain if liberals end up making this same argument or begin advocating for this, even if for the wrong reasons. And men definitely shouldn’t get to enjoy the pleasures of sexual intercourse and then bail the minute the consequences of such intercourse come up.
Both as a Christian and as a man, it disgusts me that a man would get a woman pregnant and then abandon her and the child. It’s utterly wrong and despicable to do such a thing to a woman. And while the Left might say that they also have a problem against that, it’s the natural consequence of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960’s, sponsored by the American Left both of then and now.
But if liberals inadvertently make arguments that would make society better (a man having to legally stay with the pregnant woman would do wonders for strengthening the nuclear family, not to mention it would accomplish much the same as the abstinence insofar as it keeps these men from humping anything that moves), who am I to complain?
I’ll certainly point out that they would make things better, hence this very article, but you won’t hear me making arguments against such things. At most, I would only highlight that they are only doing this for the entirely wrong reasons, which is something that definitely ought to be addressed, but otherwise, I’ll be as silent as a mouse.
After all, as Napoleon is attributed with saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
Liberals are hypocritical. This much has consistently been observed for decades, as they will claim to be in support of one thing and then proceed to do the exact opposite to what they “believe.” One such example is of Obama’s birthday bash which I talked about last week, as well as the fact that Leftists will claim to care for the environment and proceed to own massive homes and private jets which leave massive carbon footprints.
Similarly, the Left will claim to be in support of the abolition of slavery, and of the people who fought slavery in the 19th century, but will take similar stances as pro-slavery people with regards to the modern-day evil of abortion.
This is the general point that Christian group Free The States recently tried to make at a rally.
The group distributed over 500,000 fake $20 bills with Harriet Tubman’s face on the front and a burning Pennsylvania Hall (the HQ of the Philadelphia slavery abolition movement which was torched by an angry mob just four days after its opening in May 1838) on the back. The tactic was to basically fool people into attending a “put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill” rally, where they would be told certain truths about both Tubman and the fight against our modern culture’s evil: abortion.
Furthermore, the group set up a website called “Tubman20.com” and announced an in-person and livestreamed rally for August 1st at the former site of the Pennsylvania Hall.
At the rally, T. Russell Hunter, a 19th century historian and founder of Free The States, explained to the attendees “that though the abolitionists who opposed slavery are lauded in the modern era, they were loathed by the vast majority of Americans in the decades leading to the Civil War,” according to The Daily Wire.
Hunter explained: “Harriet Tubman is popular today. Her abolitionist friends are popular today. You can watch PBS documentaries about the abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass… But when Harriet Tubman was living in this city, she was an outlaw. People tried to chase her down.”
“Harriet Tubman – and these men and women in the abolitionist movement – rejected all compromise with slavery. They demanded its total and immediate abolition. These abolitionists not only argued that slavery was evil, but they argued that gradual abolition was evil. They spent as much time arguing with moderate anti-slavery gradualists as they did arguing against slavery itself.”
“Here’s the point. Does our culture truly support Harriet Tubman? Do we appreciate people like Harriet Tubman, or do we treat abolitionists of today in the way we treated abolitionists of the past?”
“We find ourselves in a similar situation today among a similar people,” he continued to explain. “Chattel slavery is no longer legal; it has been abolished. The Supreme Court no longer prohibits individuals or states from helping those in bondage. However, the federal government, every state government, and the majority of the population totally, emphatically, and unquestionably protects the Supreme Court-sanctioned evil of our own age… I am talking about the evil of human abortion and the movement to abolish it.”
Unsurprisingly, as soon as Hunter revealed the true purpose of the rally, several attendees began to leave in anger. Hunter used those leaving as a good example of his point.
“Some of these folks that leave, that don’t want to hear us out – they don’t realize that they are treating us just the same way as they treated the abolitionists of an earlier age. They were willing to celebrate abolitionists like Harriet Tubman until someone said, ‘You agree with her then, but you would not agree with her now.’”
“We believe that these children ought to be rescued from being taken away to death. Like her, we believe that we should not live for ourselves, but we should live for others. Like her, we believe in and follow Christ. We believe that He leads the abolitionist cause, and that His gospel is the answer to abortion.”
In an interview with The Daily Wire, he noted that “it was very interesting to note who left and who stayed.”
“Almost all the white liberals stormed off in anger when the rally switched gears. But not a single black person left. Many of them stayed for more than thirty minutes after the rally was over to talk about abolitionism and have me sign their bills. Our message resonated strongly with them.”
“Our culture thinks they like Harriet Tubman, but that’s only because they have created a false, secularized version of her. She was a Bible-quoting, gun-toting, evangelical Christian abolitionist who trusted in God’s providence above all else. Tubman was the furthest thing from a modern leftist.”
“Tubman demanded slavery’s total and immediate abolition. She told Lincoln, ‘Never wound a snake. Kill it.’ She supported nullifying tyrannical fugitive slave laws. She supported immediatism, nullification, and many more of the principles pro-life leaders argue against when they oppose abolition bills.”
“Because of this, we set out to teach the culture about immediatism, nullification, and – most importantly – the gospel of Jesus Christ that animated Harriet Tubman.”
There isn’t a single thing here I could possibly, as a Christian, argue against, not that I would want to anyway.
I don’t know of any pro-life leaders who oppose abolition bills, and certainly, one could not consider themselves pro-life, let alone a leader, if they do. But if Hunter is going so far as to mention that, he probably has someone or some people in mind who fit the bill. Certainly, RINO Republicans who say what they need to say to gain support and then betray the principles they claim to espouse.
But what this rally demonstrated was the great point of the similarities of both abolitionist movements of the 19th century and of today.
While polls show that abortion is nowhere near as popular as the Left might have us believe, it is still more popular than I would want, and I’m willing to bet that many people would rather keep than overturn Roe v. Wade, as Hunter was trying to point out.
So with regards to the evil of abortion, abolitionists are much in the same position today as they were in the 19th century with regards to slavery.
Federal and state governments support abortion about as much as they supported slavery, and the reason laws changed was because more and more people recognized the evil of slavery, as I believe more and more people will recognize the evil of abortion. Those who argued against slavery were treated with contempt by many people, and attempts at changing the culture were met with violence (as evidenced by the burning of Pennsylvania Hall just four days after its opening).
Similarly, those who argue against abortion are treated with contempt, ironically even called “evil” and “anti-woman” and attempts at changing the culture are met with similar contempt (as evidenced by angry white liberals leaving the rally) and often times violence.
The same people, Democrats, who supported slavery in the past also support abortion today. Only abortion is even more ghoulish than slavery was, as abortion is the specific targeting of human babies for termination. Slaves at least got to live, for the most part. Not great lives, but lives nonetheless. Slaves were not sought out for destruction. Slavery was profitable mostly by the maintenance of the slaves and their numbers. Abortion is profitable exclusively by the elimination of human life.
It might be surprising for some to hear, but there is no doubt in my mind that abortion is a way worse evil than slavery ever was.
In 1860, five years before the abolition of slavery, the U.S. population was a little over 31 million. 3.9 million of them were slaves. So in 1860, 12% of the US population were slaves.
In 2020, the U.S. population was a little over 330 million. There have been over 63 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. Comparatively speaking, that’s nearly 20% of the current population. More people, numerically and statistically, have been killed by abortion than were slaves at the HEIGHT of slavery in 1860.
Abortion is a holocaust unlike any other. It supersedes Germany’s, Russia’s and China’s. It dwarfs slavery in the U.S., but one would be scorned for even thinking that, let alone saying it.
Even slavery’s purpose wasn’t outright genocide. Abortion is, even if there are those who argue against that.
They will say that babies “aren’t alive”, dehumanizing them like they did black people. They will say “it’s a woman’s choice”, also dehumanizing the babies as though they were property to be kept or tossed. When they inevitably run out of excuses to try and justify the unjustifiable, they switch to personal attacks of “you’re a sexist” or “you’re anti-woman” when abortion leaves many women emotionally scarred and regretting their decisions (not to mention we are at the point where they will argue that MEN can get an abortion, so how is that pro-woman?).
Any possible defense they have for abortion can be used for defending slavery. “What if a rape happens?” “What if it’s incest?” “What if it’s deformed or won’t have a normal life?” “It’s not a baby, it’s just a fetus!”
“What if the slave rapes someone in his freedom?” “What if they decide to have disgusting incestual relationships in their freedom?” “What if they are deformed and couldn’t have a normal life outside of slavery?” “It’s not a human, it’s property!”
The slavers of yesterday are the abortionists of today. They take up similar defensive strategies in opposing abolition in both centuries.
And like Hunter pointed out, it’s largely the white liberals who stormed off. The white liberals, who like to white knight for minorities, are the ones who got offended. The white liberals, who used to own slaves back in the day, are the ones who opposed abolition. Meanwhile, black people, the people most targeted by both institutions, decided to stay and hear the abolitionists out.
Funny how it works, that white liberals make ignorant, bigoted assumptions about what minorities think and want because those are the things the white liberals want them to think and want.
Like their incredulity at how a Latino could support Trump (after all, he was building a “racist wall” and wants to “deport people like me”), they are incredulous at the idea that there are black people who stand against the institution which seeks them out for termination.
They live in their own little bubble with their own little presuppositions about how the world works and how other people think and feel. And yet, they also have enough narcissism and self-righteousness to claim that black people who are conservatives “aren’t real black people” (and will make similar charges of conservatives of other minorities).
At any rate, what Free The States did here is spectacular and their points are well-made. Abortion ought to be immediately abolished and there can be no room for moderation or debate on that front. Slowly getting rid of abortion is as evil as not getting rid of it at all, so the solution ought to be quick and immediate.
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
For decades, the Left has made the argument that abortion was “safe” and meant to be “rare” and that those who perform the abortion were “kind and understanding” people who cared about the patients. It is no surprise, really, that the Left lies about this as much as anything else, and horror stories from a Texas PP abortion clinic will show that.
As with other businesses (which begs the question as to why PP is tax-funded, since they get paid by their customers like any other business), Planned Parenthood abortion facilities get reviewed online by customers who had some sort of comment to make about their experience. Today, we will read the stories of four customers who have had horrible experiences at this particular slaughterhouse, and will check out how this facility stacked up when reviewed by health inspectors.
First, the horror stories.
One woman, who will of course remain nameless, posted the following lengthy review (which I will cut a bit to save time):
“I had a pregnancy that I knew I couldn’t go through for financial reasons… and if I [could afford it] I would not have had an abortion… The decision I made was hard for me and I needed someone who understood. When I got there I waited for hours alone. They brought me in to give me packets on adoption agencies, took my money and sent me back out. Then a few hours later I was herded into waiting room #2 which was smaller for a couple more hours. When I got in to visit the doctor he described the abortion process so fast it was difficult to understand, because, for him it was obviously just a script. Very little heart went into what was being said. I was so confused and had a difficult time processing the information that was being said because of the speed and lack of emotional connection… When I came in for the abortion I became emotional, yet, I had to wait for hours in a packed waiting room, 8 to be exact. I was herded from place to place and everyone who spoke to me recited a script as fast as they could so they could get the next person in. I was just a number. When I finally went in, there was a large bio waste bucket overflowing with the materials used to perform abortions which was not comforting. The procedure itself was incredibly painful and I was on the strongest medication they had. I weighed only 92 lbs. during this procedure and had a very hard time staying awake after it was finished. They seemed frustrated with me for being out of it. I started throwing up as soon as the medicine wore off and after THAT whole experience, the hours of waiting, knowing if I could have my baby I would have… I broke down, and they WOULDN’T let me leave until I stopped crying. I understand that emotions in the waiting room are delicate but they didn’t seem to care through the rest of the procedure.”
This woman then goes on to say that she is, unsurprisingly, pro-abortion and even pro-PP, but an experience like this really ought to get someone to rethink some stuff. Like I said in the beginning of the article, for decades, we have been told that abortion was “safe” and “rare” and that those who “take care” of the women going through such procedures are “kind and compassionate” individuals who understand the women’s situation. All a load of bullcrap, of course. There is nothing safe or rare about abortion, as one can see from just this review alone.
That the murderers were speaking as fast as they could was an indication of two things, one of which the woman writing this review kind of hints at: 1) they WANT it to be confusing so that the women leave the ultimate choice up to the abortionists themselves because they wouldn’t be able to make the best decision themselves (going against the whole “pro-choice” idea) and 2) they herd women through so they can perform as many abortions as they can. It’s that second thing which demonstrates the bullcrap nature of that whole “rare” argument.
No Leftist wants abortion to be rare. To the contrary, they want it to be COMMON and PREVALENT. After all, they make PLENTY of money off of it, with the b.s. lobbying in Congress and other donations made by PP to Leftist politicians. All at the tax-payers’ expense, of course.
The idea that these people are “kind and considerate” is, frankly, a bit oxymoronic (and generally moronic). A murderer isn’t “kind and considerate”. At best, they only pretend to be. They are evil and, like the devil, entice people to commit horrid actions against their benefit.
The woman leaving a review did NOT have to get an abortion. She said she did it for financial reasons, but that’s not a good enough reason (and there is no good enough reason for abortion, ever). If she was worried she couldn’t raise her child, why not give them up for adoption or leave them in the hands of trusted family and/or friends? Why is murder the go-to option here? For anyone? Even for someone who is pro-abortion?
In any case, let’s move on to the other stories, which for the sake of time, I will further edit down and offer less commentary until I feel the need to speak.
“A nurse was making insensitive remarks and yelling at my ear saying I have no reason to be crying while I was on the table getting my procedure done… I was under pressure while this woman aggressively asking why am I crying and saying that they know it doesn’t hurt me that bad… In recovery she also stated that they should close the curtain because no one wants to see me crying…. I was so frustrated at that difficult moment I just feel like some sort of action should be taken… Meanwhile in recovery I was still crying and a diff nurse said that if I didn’t stop crying they would remove me and take me to the hospital… they were yelling at me and it made me cry harder… I paid money so they could do their job this is one experience I would never forget those two women or this experience bad enough I was forced on this abortion but to have those women speak to me the way they did was very unprofessional…”
Not the best grammar, but from what I can tell, it seems this woman was FORCED to get an abortion in some form or fashion, likely pressure from someone she knows. Again, what’s pro-choice about this? Where is the choice? And again, she had to pay money for people to do this. Why does PP, a for-profit business, get funds from tax payers?
Next woman: “Dr. Jordan and his staff are entirely incompetent. My counselor I was supposed to talk to barely said two words to me and when I began to cry… his staff kept telling me that I needed to just grow up and that it wouldn’t be that bad. Two months ago I was raped and they offered no compassion or understanding… When I entered the room for the sonogram, Dr. Jordan told me I was not being compliant because I was crying, mind you he hadn’t given me any instruction or said anything to me before that. When the sonogram was over, I wasn’t offered anything to clean the medical lubricant off of myself with nor was I given a panty liner… I was made to wait more than 15 minutes in a tiny… waiting room by myself, no counselor at all, and when I had an anxiety attack in that small room, they took me back to the lobby and told me that I needed to take my business elsewhere.”
Thankfully, this woman wound up not getting an abortion (at least at this facility) but still.
And lastly, the fourth woman: “The surgery here hurt like hell, the medicine they give you does not soften your cervix in time for surgery so he will literally crack it open… After having my surgery here I went home for 4 nights I bled tremendously to the point I slept with 2 large towels to protect my bed.”
But it’s not just customer experiences that indicate how awful of a place this PP facility is.
According to a report by Check My Clinic, which makes health inspections for abortion facilities, they failed in a number of aspects:
As well as 13 other health violations including clean linens being stored on the floor and other things which created risk for infection.
So not only is the staff at the PP facility filled with blatantly uncaring and uncompassionate individuals (I imagine at least other facilities have people who pretend to care) but the place itself is practically a pigsty and an utterly unsafe environment for anything which could be insultingly called “healthcare.”
Again, the whole “safe” and “compassionate” argument is a complete farce. The Left doesn’t care about women or their health and safety. PP is a piggy bank for them and something which works towards their desired ends of destroying all sense of morality in the world.
May God severely punish this and all PP facilities which are houses of murder, all Leftists who support this immoral crap, and that He guide all the women who are scared and confused and easily manipulated into potentially doing something so egregious away from choosing this ultimate evil.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
As I have said a number of times in the past, there is no reason for anyone to believe that what grows inside the womb of a human woman (and exclusively a woman) is anything other than a human baby. Simple reason demands that we understand that, as two humans coming together and creating new life could only ever produce a human life, not anything else. But science itself, which the Left claims is all-important, shows the humanity of an unborn child.
Which is why “Window to the Womb” was created. It is a pro-life program in Effingham, Illinois, which partners St. Anthony High School with St. Anthony Hospital to give senior students participating in a religion class in the school the chance to tour the pregnancy center and to watch an ultrasound screening in real time.
The program was conceived (pun intended) by Effingham resident Valerie Kemme, who came up with the idea after “reading articles about the high percentage of abortion-vulnerable women who choose to keep their babies after viewing ultrasounds,” according to Live Action News.
“Kemme wondered, ‘What if we were able to get everybody to see an ultrasound?’ Aware that the abortion industry acts as if ‘that’s not a baby’ inside the pregnant woman’s body, Kemme thought, ‘Wouldn’t it click with so many more people if they would see what’s really going on in the womb, then they would value life?’,” according to Live Action.
And this train of thought is certainly a correct one. Even just recently, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal have all either ignored or rejected the idea that a 15-week-old pre-born baby is a human baby at all, with Pelosi and Feinstein refusing to answer this easily-answered question and with Blumenthal saying he would wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on whether it is a human or not.
All of them are massive morons at best and heartless humans at worst, and I know damn well they are far closer to the latter than the former. Actually, I changed my mind. They are both heartless humans AND massive morons.
Like I said in the beginning, all you need is reason to understand that what grows in a human woman is a HUMAN BABY. It can’t be a dog, or a cat, or a bird, or a dingo. If two humans procreate, they conceive a human life because of the mixture of two human DNA’s. Logic tells you this, science tells you this, and given that these people revere “science” as a god, you’d think they would practice what they preached and “followed the science.”
Except their brand of science isn’t actual science derived from facts and evidence, but whatever agenda item they want to pass off under the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the term “science.”
But at any rate, Kemme’s reasoning is definitely sound, as most people (who are not massive morons and/or heartless humans) will see an ultrasound image of a live pre-born baby and recognize the humanity and life of that baby.
Again, that’s MOST people. Rewatching one of my favorite shows, “Friends,” I have noted a number of times when they, likely unintentionally, have pro-life moments that depict the sanctity of life. Off the top of my head, I can recount two such moments, both with regard to Rachel’s pregnancy.
First, though this happened later on than the following example, is of a character played, ironically, by pro-death actor Alec Baldwin, who played the role of a super optimistic and happy guy who briefly dates Phoebe. When Parker, the Baldwin character, meets Phoebe’s friends, including Rachel, he goes up to her, touches her belly, and tells her “Rachel, you have life growing inside you.”
She does? Because from what the Left tells me, all she has there is a random assortment of crap that, somehow, in perhaps a rather miraculous turn of events, it develops into a human baby only after it’s been born. Oh, but wait, because Leftists like Gov. Northam insist that you can kill an ALREADY BORN baby and call it an abortion and there should be no issues at all with that idea, so WHEN EXACTLY IS IT A HUMAN BEING?!
The idea that it only “becomes” a human after a certain period of time and not upon conception, when the DNA of both parents merge together to create a brand new and independent sequence, is so maligned with stupidity that only a Leftist could believe it.
Yes, the character “Rachel”, played by Jennifer Aniston (another pro-death Leftist), was growing life inside of her. Don’t know if Aniston was pregnant herself at that time or what, but either way, the character was certainly growing a life inside her womb which she eventually named “Emma” some time after she was born. So why would anyone make the argument (without evidence) that what grows inside a woman’s womb is anything other than a human life?
The second example, like I said, happened earlier than the first one. Much earlier in her pregnancy, Rachel and Ross went to the doctor to get an ultrasound screening to see the state of the baby’s health, see if there were any issues, etc. In that episode, the two characters see the baby (though Rachel comedically has a hard time of it and frequently can’t find the baby) through the ultrasound. They see that it is very small, about the size of a peanut, but that it is there, it is growing and developing, and that it is ALIVE.
They don’t mention any of these things outright, but they have a face of adoration when they see the ultrasound because they see THEIR OWN HUMAN BABY CHILD ALIVE AND WELL.
This is what parents tend to see and the reason that the program was created. When mothers see their babies for the first time (or any time) through ultrasound, they see the LIFE that is growing inside them. They don’t see the “potential” life or the random assortment of crap that might one day become human. No, they see LIFE. They see A HUMAN.
And in an age when evil people disgustingly encourage young women to get an abortion in case they “get into trouble”, as they so revoltingly put it, it is good to see that some people want to buck the trend and help young people, in this case high school seniors, understand what goes on in the womb of a pregnant mother and what significance that little baby has.
It is fantastic because the vast majority of the students come out with a greater understanding and appreciation for life and for the importance of the defense of these babies, even for those students who already considered themselves to be pro-life.
“I’ve always been pro-life, but this opened my eyes to what I’m truly fighting for in being pro-life,” one student said.
Another said: “I am against abortion. However, it was in seeing that sonogram that I truly understood what being pro-life is about. It is about protecting that baby, who even in the womb had arms and legs, who had a spine and a brain, who had a heart and kidneys, who hid from the camera and yawned in exhaustion. It is my job to stand up for that child – as they are just like me.”
So these students come out of this having benefited from it and understanding things a little more clearly. They are shown where some of the developing or already developed body parts are and are informed that, tragically, the baby they are seeing in those sonograms can be legally killed if the mother, alone, desires that. The father doesn’t even get a say in the matter because they are treated as second class citizens in a pregnancy, not as the equal partner to the woman, so if the mother wants to kill the baby and the father wants to keep the baby, his opinion is utterly ignored.
And yet, somehow, if the father wants to abort and the mother wants to keep it, the mother is pressured into doing what the father wants to do. You’d think the Left would be up in arms about that, considering they make a big hoopla about how it’s a “woman’s choice” and that the father “has no uterus, so no valid opinion” but seeing as she is pressured into making the choice the Left wants her to make, they have no problems with that at all.
At any rate, it is fantastic that such a program exists to teach high school seniors of what goes on in the womb and how significant and important it is to do everything to keep that baby alive. Here’s hoping that more and more schools and hospitals partner together to inform more and more kids of the sanctity of life and the monstrosity of abortion.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
For some reason, the idea of keeping people alive is a polarizing one, and one which can potentially lead someone to be cancelled if they choose the side of life. But despite the risks, one TikTok teen influencer named Naim Darrechi told his 26 million followers, in a series of videos, that he is pro-life and makes good to great arguments against abortion.
The 19-year-old said: “An abortion is interrupting a life. When a woman is pregnant, if she doesn’t take anything, if she doesn’t abort, the natural cycle is going to make a life emerge.”
“But here one of the biggest arguments of the people who are in favor of abortion, which is: ‘no, but the fetus does not suffer, that is something that has nothing there, is that it does not suffer.’ (The guy is from Spain, so forgive the slightly broken English) Here the question is not whether he suffers or not. The question here is that a life is being taken.”
He then goes on to liken an abortion (under the assumption that it doesn’t cause suffering to the child or mother) to going to someone’s house while they sleep and turning on the gas so that it kills them “without making them suffer”. He argues that, in such a case, that would still be considered murder and the culprit would still be arrested and charged with murder, but when it comes to abortion, which is “similar” in this scenario (again, under the aforementioned assumption, which I will talk about momentarily), not only is it legal in most places, but outright encouraged and taxpayers are forced to fund it.
Frankly, I think that is a very good argument to make against pro-abortion people. However, it is also important to bring in the fact that both the baby and the mother suffer during and after an abortion (namely, the mother suffering after the abortion).
LiveAction reports: “A preborn child does suffer during an abortion as her body is torn apart by either the suction machine in a first trimester D&C or the abortionist’s tools of dismemberment in a second trimester D&E. The abortion pill starves the developing preborn child, and during a third-trimester induction abortion, preborn children capable of surviving outside the womb are killed when the abortionist causes cardiac arrest. There is nothing about abortion that is peaceful or pain-free, and researchers have found that preborn children may be able to feel pain as early as eight weeks.”
And that’s just regarding the child, which is, of course, a major deal. The baby can feel pain as early as eight weeks, so any abortion that happens after those eight weeks of pregnancy will cause the child pain. But the pain doesn’t end with the dead baby. If anything, it begins with it; for the mother, that is.
There is a slew of women who suffer either physically or, most often, psychologically and emotionally following an abortion. For example, there is rape survivor Ashley Sigrest (I’ll get to the argument of abortion in the case of rape in a moment). Ashley explained: “I could never ever deal with my rape because I was so focused on what I had done in choosing abortion. And that’s what people don’t understand when they tell rape victims, ‘Oh, yes, have an abortion so that way you can go on and we can deal with the rape.’ But the abortion just makes the rape 1,000 times worse because now you have these two horrible events that you have to deal with.”
The idea that abortion is a painless “healthcare” procedure is nothing but pro-abortion propaganda. The reality is that it is painful to the child as it is literally killed and can feel it happening, via a suction tube, poisoning, forced cardiac arrest, or literal dismemberment. And the reality is that it can also be very painful for the mother, who has to carry the weight of killing her own child for the rest of her life. Provided, of course, that she isn’t a lunatic, twisted Leftist who would be proud of such a barbaric, pagan and evil act.
Darrechi then went on to say that he is not necessarily against abortion in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, but I chuck that up to the kid not quite being so informed on this matter, since abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother.
One argument pro-abortion people make is that abortion should be permitted at least if there is the possibility that the mother herself is at risk because of ectopic pregnancy or other issues such as cancer which might lead to her death if the baby is not taken out of her. However, abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.
Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb explains: “In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered… These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life-threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. These situations are considered a preterm delivery and not an abortion.”
“There are also serious safety concerns related to late-term abortion. If a woman’s life is in imminent danger, a preterm delivery is a much safer option. An emergency C-section can be completed in less than an hour, while an abortion after 24 weeks, when the most common life-threatening life complications occur, takes 2-3 days to complete due to the necessary dilation process – in essence, delaying treatment and significantly increasing the risk of death and serious disability to the mother,” Dr. Kolb continued.
And she is far from alone on this. The Dublin Declaration is a document which was signed by 1,000 healthcare providers and which affirms the idea that Dr. Kolb is sharing: abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.
So as far as Darrechi goes, given his stances on the other matters regarding abortion, I suspect he doesn’t really know of this fact but would change his mind once given this information.
And as far as abortion in the case of rape, as I talked about earlier, it doesn’t make the situation any better to take the life of an innocent child.
Darrechi himself argued: “I know it is a very sensitive issue and in those cases it could happen. But wouldn’t it be better to give a very large compensation from the State for the damage caused to that person, for the psychological help that it will entail… for the expenses of the baby and for thousands of things?,” adding that abortion after rape would just be “putting another trauma [on the mother] and not helping her and such, I think it is not the best solution. Because in the end the baby, the baby, is not to blame for anything.”
Precisely. Not to mention that abortion after a rape makes it all the more difficult to ensure that the rapist can’t victimize any more women. The baby itself would carry 50% of the father’s DNA, so it would serve as great evidence in convicting the bastard and ensuring that more women aren’t made victims of rape. You’d think that the Left, which is supposedly all about empowering women, would support maintaining the life of the baby which could help save many other women, but no, that’s not what they do.
They profit off of death, which is why they are so adamant about pushing for abortion at every stage of pregnancy and for it to be free and readily accessible. They are murderers and rapists only help with their profits, so why would they be against them? Some of them are rapists themselves, after all (looking at you, Occupier Biden and Bill Clinton).
Getting back to Darrechi, he posted a follow-up video responding to a fan who asked what he would do if his girlfriend were to become unexpectedly pregnant. He replied: “I would be a father without hesitation. You give me a child and I’ll fall in love with it. Giving life to someone and on top of having the responsibility of educating him and being able to teach and guide him is the most beautiful and most precious thing in the world.”
A great answer. The kid, as a popular influencer, took a great risk in saying all these things, because there are a lot of people whom he’s pissed off and who will want to cancel him for these things. They will call him an “oppressor” despite the fact that “sexual liberation” is the biggest oppressor of women, and they will smear him with lies and putrid things. But he did the right thing, and such a thing is not unnoticed by God.
Though evil people are against him, it is a good thing, for this means he has done the right thing. The kid seems to be a Christian, and certainly holds the Christian belief of right to life, so he will be protected by God, no matter what the evil people might try and do.
“And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.”
We once again are faced with a horrific judge who ought to be in prison, not be sending people to prison, and interestingly enough, it is someone we have previously talked about.
If you’ve been a long-time reader of ours, that picture above might look familiar. Back in April of 2017, the Left was looking for any and all kinds of ways to stop President Trump and his legal executive orders which would harm the Left’s causes. Among such EO’s was an order to stop the funding of sanctuary cities which illegally protected illegal immigrants from deportation.
The judge in the picture above is Judge William H. Orrick, the judge who, back in April, blocked President Trump’s sanctuary city executive order.
Well, we now have another story about him, though completely unrelated from that April 2017 article.
In July of 2015, Judge Orrick reportedly “issued a restraining order blocking the release of undercover videos at the National Abortion Federation (NAF) convention showing Planned Parenthood employees negotiating the sale of aborted fetus body parts,” according to The Federalist.
Nearly six years later and those videos, making up over 200 hours of footage, have still not been released to the public, though that may not be the case for long.
Ever since the first undercover footage was released back in 2015 (remember the PP executive who said “I want a Lamborghini” in exchange for baby body parts? That footage), The Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, have been entrenched in legal battles with both the NAF and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). But to the luck of the killers-for-profit, the presiding judge was none other than William Orrick.
Orrick, by the way, is an Obama-appointed judge who was a big donor to Obama’s presidential campaign and he and his wife are big pro-abortion advocates, with both of them being longtime donors to San Francisco’s Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC), which ought to be called anything other than something related to Christianity as Orrick was a board member of this organization and helped fund and open a Planned Parenthood clinic on its site. According to The Federalist, that clinic “sold fetal tissue to StemExpress, a for-profit wholesaler exposed by CMP’s videos and reporting.”
Orrick’s wife is also a major abortion advocate, who reportedly has “liked” pro-abortion groups on Facebook and posts which called CMP and Daleiden’s videos “domestic terrorism.”
So the legal serial killer organizations have the judge in their back-pocket, which is why there has been so little justice surrounding the release of the hundreds of hours of footage depicting people in those organizations illegally profiting off of the tissue of their child victims.
However, there is good news: There are two cases involved here which put Orrick in a lose-lose position.
The first case is actually a $16 million lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against Daleiden and CMP, which recently was appealed and filed to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals by Daleiden to be reversed on the grounds that his First Amendment rights are being infringed. Orrick was the one who ruled that Daleiden’s 1A rights were not being infringed, so he decided to appeal it to the Ninth. At any rate, this case filed by PP against Daleiden is a suit alleging Daleiden of having committed fraud, trespassing, unlawful recording and breach of contract. However, and this is key, they did not sue him for defamation.
The reason for having not sued Daleiden for defamation is so that the content of the video did not have to be the focus of the case. So any testimony about what they did wrong would be deemed irrelevant by the judge, which ended up happening. They can’t fight against an expert testimony about their wrongdoing even if Orrick himself argues nothing criminal or wrong occurred, so they would rather sue Daleiden for technical stuff to avoid trouble for themselves. It was actually fairly strategic.
The NAF, however, was not quite as strategic, having agreed to drop most of their claims against Daleiden, also having sued him for those videos, “asking only for a summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and seeking a permanent ban on the videos solely because of the way it will harm their reputation,” according to The Federalist. The NAF is still arguing in their suit that the content of the videos is false and would be harmful, or defamatory, to their organization and reputation.
This was the major mistake made by the baby killers, as this is what helps put Orrick in a lose-lose situation.
I will get to why in just a moment, I just have to provide one more piece of context.
You see, back in 2016, when Orrick ruled that Daleiden’s 1A rights were not being infringed, or at least that releasing the videos would jeopardize the safety of the abortion workers (NAF’s members specifically) so that was more important than Daleiden’s 1A rights, he had reviewed both transcripts and recordings of the videos and determined that he had found “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing.”
According to his own non-expert analysis of the videos, he does not believe there was criminal wrongdoing in those videos. However, one of CMP’s witnesses claims differently.
Dr. Forrest Smith is said CMP witness. Smith is an OB-GYN in California who horrifically has said that he has performed over 50,000 abortions. While the guy has the blood of 50,000 people on his hands and he should be arrested and executed for genocide, he is actually a helpful witness for CMP and Daleiden, as he is an expert on the field, disgusting as that reality is.
In 2019, Smith took the witness stand at the trial of PPFA’s case against Daleiden and testified that “there’s no question” that some of the induced abortions on the videos “were live births.” He also testified that the PP employees violated other medical standards of practice.
As this was in the PPFA case which did not sue on defamation, Orrick didn’t allow Smith’s testimony, deeming it unnecessary, though his expert report was submitted but never used.
However, Daleiden and CMP submitted another extensive report from Smith in the NAF case, meaning that Orrick can’t block Smith’s testimony at least on the same grounds as the PPFA case because Smith’s testimony is necessary for the case of defamation.
This is why the NAF made a mistake in suing for defamation: The expert testimony alleges wrongdoing even if the judge, a non-expert, claims otherwise. And this is why that puts Orrick in a lose-lose situation: Either Orrick claims that he knows better than the expert on this matter, thereby further showing he is on the side of Planned Parenthood and making it easier to get him removed from the case, or he rules justly and accordingly, which pits him against Planned Parenthood and the Left.
In all likelihood, he will choose the former, as that seems to be his best option for not angering his Leftist masters, but it would potentially ruin PP’s case against Daleiden, who could then release the footage unrestrained.
And if Orrick rules justly, it will possibly also lead to the release of the footage anyway, as Peter Breen, Daleiden’s defense attorney, argued during a Zoom hearing in February that the videos should be made available to police or lawmakers investigating PP as well as to the public, arguing that it’s a matter of “public interest,” which it certainly is.
Breen said: “There’s nothing inconsistent with the court saying ‘I don’t see it but others do’ and certainly the court would not want to stand in the posture of a censor over something that has First Amendment value and public interest value.”
Unfortunately, while this would normally be quite the trap for a corrupt judge, the reality is that the justice system is broken in this country and the judge could, ultimately, simply disregard the consequences of being blatantly on Planned Parenthood’s side. He’s an Obama-appointed judge and has previously been a hero to the Left regarding that block of Trump’s executive order. Who knows what his ultimate decision will be and who knows how legal or illegal it ultimately will be?
Furthermore, even if he is forcibly removed from this case, who’s to say that he would be replaced by someone who will actually rule fairly and impartially? This is Commiefornia, after all. Hardly any judge in that state is against abortion or Planned Parenthood and hardly any judge would rule against them.
Serious actual justice reform is necessary so as to keep these baby killers not only from being able to legally operate but, at the very least, from being able to financially or ideologically bribe the judges presiding over their cases.
If even an expert in the field of abortion whom has himself taken the lives of over 50,000 innocents is testifying, under oath, that Planned Parenthood broke all sorts of laws, let alone ethics, I see little reason to not believe his testimony. These people should go to prison for a long time and it is an abortion of justice for the judge to be on their side so blatantly.
I hope and pray that these evil bastards will face the justice that they deserve.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
I have written countless articles about abortion and detailed with no pulled punches just how evil and twisted it is, and how evil and twisted those who most fervently support it are. But if you want to see just how evil abortion is, and how calling it “pro-choice” is nothing but a farce, I suggest you listen to the story I am about to share with you.
This comes from a LiveAction.org story from late last year. I had, on occasion, thought about talking about it or at least mentioning it, but seeing as the period between November 26 (the day that article was published) and at least the last week or so of January was relatively hectic, I hardly had much of a chance to talk about this. But it is a story that I do not want people to miss out on because it’s powerful.
In a book interestingly titled “Shout Your Abortion Too,” there is a story of a woman named Katie, who recalls the coerced abortion she was forced to undertake as well as the trauma that she had suffered at the hands of her toxic boyfriend and workers at Planned Parenthood.
According to LiveAction: “[Katie] and her boyfriend went to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test, which was positive. While there, the Planned Parenthood worker asked them what they wanted to do about the baby. ‘My boyfriend spoke up, quickly and firmly, with one word, “ABORTION.” It was the first time that word had been spoken between us,’ said Katie.”
Katie went on to recall: “The counselor did not ask me if I agreed, or if we wanted any other information regarding what kind of support would be available to us if we decided to move forward with the pregnancy, nor did she mention the option of adoption.”
A bit of a red flag for those who might still argue that this is about “choice”, right? The girl was not given a choice. Matter of fact, it was the BOYFRIEND, the father-to-be, who made the choice for her. And the Planned Parenthood workers did not bat an eyelid at that whatsoever.
What, exactly, do you think would have happened if the boyfriend had suggested keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption? Do you think the PP worker would have remained silent? Or would they have said “this is your girlfriend’s choice, not your own”? And don’t tell me they would have said “well, discuss it amongst yourselves and arrive at a consensus” because there have been times when a girl got an abortion despite her boyfriend BEGGING her to not get one.
The Left presents people with the illusion of choice in many areas, and abortion is one of those. Women only have the “choice” regarding their baby if that choice is to kill it. Katie’s opinion didn’t matter at all here because the boyfriend wanted to get an abortion and Planned Parenthood makes the bulk of its money by doing that.
And instead of trying to give Katie any alternatives, the PP worker ENCOURAGED them to abort, saying that “abortion was the responsible choice to make since [they] were just college students without jobs or the means to provide a stable home for the baby,” insisting that they had their whole lives ahead of them to start a family.
What’s more, the PP worker also lied to Katie and pressured her to get an abortion quickly:
“She assured us by saying that at that point in the pregnancy, the embryo was just ‘undeveloped tissue’ but then added an urgent warning that we would want to act quickly because after a few more weeks ‘it would get a little more complicated.’”
I don’t know how many months pregnant Katie was at the time, but at no point in the pregnancy is the baby “just ‘undeveloped tissue.’” Life begins upon conception, the union of the father’s DNA through the sperm cell and the mother’s DNA through the egg cell, creating a brand new genetic code unique to that person and different from all others which came before or would come after.
It’s life. It is alive. It’s a person beginning their development. It’s not “undeveloped tissue”; it’s a developing human baby.
No one would look at a pregnant dog and say “ah, she’s just harboring undeveloped tissue within her womb”. So why would we treat human babies as less than a dog?
At any rate, LiveAction continues: “A few days later, Katie’s boyfriend called and made an appointment for an abortion. Katie called and canceled it. She didn’t want an abortion, and she argued with her boyfriend. She said his responses to her questions about keeping the baby or adoption ‘became more desperate and threatening.’”
“He was not ready to be a dad, he would not stick around if I had the baby, he assured me I would be on my own, he couldn’t handle his child being given up for adoption and knowing they were ‘out there’ somewhere,” said Katie.
Frankly, with this kind of behavior, it’s a wonder why Katie would not dump his dead-beat ass on the spot. I can understand that she was likely afraid of taking on the role of a mother pretty much on her own (no mention of Katie’s parents in this story, but I imagine they might have at least lent a hand unless they are as big a monster as the boyfriend is), but seriously, women should not stick with horrible men like that.
Despite that pressure, Katie held her ground to not get an abortion, but then her boyfriend resorted to emotional blackmail by threatening to take his own life:
“And then came the ultimate threat: he wouldn’t be able to live with himself if I chose to keep the baby without him. He’d kill himself instead. My boyfriend was not budging. Planned Parenthood had presented it as the only reasonable and responsible choice.”
Again, where’s Katie’s “right” to “choose” here? Can a liberal tell me that Katie’s boyfriend was in the wrong here? That coercing a woman to get an abortion through emotional blackmail and threats is the antithesis of the idea of “women’s right to choose”?
Ultimately, after her friends all also encouraged her to get an abortion (don’t befriend those who would encourage an abortion; such people are evil and make for terrible friends), Katie relented and went in for an appointment.
She recalls: “The waiting room was full of young girls; a lot of them with their moms, a few with presumably their boyfriends. No one talked and many were crying. It was the saddest and darkest place I’ve ever been.”
I would hope that, before getting an abortion, the girls would be crying. That at least shows their humanity and, frankly, that they do not really want to do this but feel as though they have no other choice.
Once again, the Left presents people with the illusion of choice. These girls are led to believe that they have no other choice apart from an abortion, but that they technically “can choose” not to get one. They are emotionally and psychologically manipulated to perform perhaps the most egregious act a human can perform upon another, and are led to believe there is no other way and that they must prioritize other things like school or a career, etc.
A woman who revels in the killing of her own offspring is worse than scum; a disgusting human being that can hardly be called such.
But such women are, thankfully, the fringe minority. Most women, I imagine, view abortion not as liberation but as a tough “choice”. Not that that makes it better at any capacity, nor does it excuse the act in any way, but many of these women are made victims by evil people who benefit from the termination of a human life, whether those people be terrible boyfriends or genocidal “doctors.”
In any case, Katie was, interestingly enough, shown an ultrasound of her baby at the clinic, where she realized how full of crap the Planned Parenthood workers were:
“When I saw the ultrasound, I was shocked that I could see an image of a baby, not tissue. I saw a heart beating but the sound was turned off. There was no time to process before I was ushered into the next room where a doctor and a nurse awaited me and told me to lay down and relax. My mind was spinning. I had just seen my baby!!”
The monsters didn’t give Katie a moment to reflect on the fact that THERE WAS LIFE GROWING INSIDE HER, and made sure she couldn’t back out of the procedure. “Nobody acknowledged the tears streaming down my face,” she went on to recall. “No one stopped to ask if I was sure about what I was about to do.”
Of course no one stopped her from doing it. THEY BENEFIT FROM KILLING PEOPLE. If allowed and had a financial incentive to do so, they would kidnap pregnant women and force an abortion on them ala Chinese style, that’s how vile and evil these people are.
They hold no regard whatsoever for the life growing inside a woman’s body and hold no regard to the mother’s feelings about it unless those feelings align with their financial and political goals.
Katie, during the procedure, had eventually heard the nurse say: “You got it. I just saw it come through the tube.”
It was upon hearing those words that Katie realized what she had done:
“Those words were an absolute soul-crushing reality. They could see the baby. The baby was big enough to SEE. And they just sucked an innocent baby out of my womb with a vacuum, through a tube, and into a canister. My mind was screaming at me. What had I done?!?... I was overwhelmed with incredible regret. And the shame, guilt, and grief were unbearable.”
Following the forced abortion, her relationship with her boyfriend further deteriorated, and she said that he had become physically and verbally abusive. Years later, Katie said: “There will always be an ache in my heart that wishes I had not taken the life of my child; that looks at each year wondering what their life would’ve looked like now.”
And Katie’s story is not necessarily unique. Roughly 73% of women with a history of abortion admitted in a 2018 survey that “they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancies,” according to the Population Research Institute.
Over 50% of women reported that they had perceived great enough pressure to significantly influence their decision to abort, nearly 60% said that they aborted to “make others happy” and almost 30% said they did it because they were afraid of losing their partner if they didn’t abort. 66% of the surveyed women said that they knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong and 67.5% said that such a decision was the most difficult one of their whole lives.
Women are naturally drawn to protect their children. They have parental instincts to preserve the lives of their offspring ahead of even their own. The very concept of abortion is antithetical to a woman’s instincts and it’s why so many girls at those clinics are crying: they KNOW that what they are doing is wrong, but are led to believe by evil forces that they have no choice but to do wrong.
“You’re young, in college, unemployed, and have your whole life ahead of you. What makes you think you have the capability to take care of this baby and have a good life?” This is the kind of argument Satan uses to coerce people into living a life full of sin. No surprise, then, that the Left is such a fan.
May God open the eyes of all women everywhere to the recognition that abortion is wrong and to have the courage to stand up against this vile, evil, anti-woman, anti-human, anti-nature and anti-God atrocity.
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.”
I am not a Catholic whatsoever and find many faults with the Catholic theology and doctrine. However, despite those differences, I know very well that to be a Catholic still means to be a Christian, and simply professing one’s faith does not mean that one possesses such faith.
That is the sort of faith that Joe Biden and other faux-Christian Democrats have professed for decades and even most recently, as the media has attempted to portray Joe Biden as a “devout Catholic” particularly before the election to try and take away some of the evangelical vote from Trump (even though evangelicals are not Catholic). That any of these killers of the young and old would consider themselves Christian is deeply insulting to anyone who actually is a Christian.
Despite that, they do, indeed, call themselves “Christians” or “Catholics” and have people within the Church backing them up (the devil attends church, after all). Actual Christians, however, recognize the fact that such people are not really Christian and do not stand for anything that is Christian.
Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is one such Christian who sees the evil morals that Biden holds, at least for the most part.
Gomez issued the following statement on Wednesday, saying that “working with [Occupier] Biden will be unique… as he is our first [occupier] in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.”
“Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor – all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.”
I’m far more certain it wasn’t his “faith” which brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, but remembering that he is obscenely wealthy and in a good position as part of the Washington Establishment to make far more money still. This, obviously, is where I wholeheartedly disagree with Gomez, as I find no actual faith within Joe Biden. Certainly, none of his policies and actions are indicative of someone who trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor? The economy is shut down and he wants MORE of that, which will only hurt the vast majority of people and especially those who were already poor.
Saying on the campaign trail that he would help the poor or the working class or whatever is not actually doing any of those things, particularly if his policies will not help the poor but only serve to further enrich himself and his Wall Street buddies.
Biden serves only himself and those who can help him at any capacity. The poor are nothing to him except servants at his feet.
But at any rate, Gomez continued:
“[A]s pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new [Occupier] has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.”
“Our commitments on issues of human sexuality and the family, as with our commitments in every other area – such as abolishing the death penalty or seeking a health care system and economy that truly serves the human person – are guided by Christ’s great commandment to love and to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable,” Gomez continued.
For the most part, this is good stuff. I disagree on the issue of the death penalty, as the death penalty is reserved for those whom deserve its harsh punishment, namely killers. Genesis 9:5-6 says: “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.’” And Exodus 21:12 says: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”
And regarding the health care system and economy, I agree only insofar as the Left has destroyed both and changed it enough to really only benefit the wealthy and not give the little people the ability to compete. Just look at Parler trying to compete with Twitter and getting utterly nuked off of the internet to see what I mean. Not to mention that the Wayfair ruling of 2018 (though a “conservative” majority was responsible for that ruling) is the primary reason as to why we don’t have a store to sell merchandise, as selling things online to people outside of our own state would require more financial and legal muscle than we have.
But with that small tangent out of the way, let’s get back to the overall grievances of actual Catholics against the faux-Christian Democrats like Joe Biden.
“For the nation’s bishops,” Gomez continued, “the continued injustice of abortion remains the ‘preeminent priority.’ Preeminent does not mean ‘only.’ We have deep concerns about many threats to human life and dignity in our society. But as Pope Francis teaches, we cannot stay silent when nearly a million unborn lives are being cast aside in our country year after year through abortion.”
This made a lot of faux-Christians mad, such as the Vatican and the Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich, though interestingly, most of their complaints were regarding procedure which seemingly Gomez broke with issuing that statement. That isn’t to say that the Chicago cardinals agree with Gomez, as they were pretty clearly in support of Biden and calling the statement “ill-considered”.
Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about this, and only said that Biden “attends church regularly” which is a non-answer. Attending church doesn’t mean someone is a Christian.
One of Biden’s first executive orders was about forcing educational institutions which receive government funding (that is to say, most of them) must allow biologically male athletes on the women’s teams and forces girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys if the boys wanted to use those facilities.
He has constantly reiterated his commitment to killing as many babies as he can with pro-abortion legislation and has told people he fully intends on lifting the Mexico City policy which bans NGOs which promote and provide abortion internationally, and intends on lifting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from going to domestic abortion providers.
For that one issue alone, he is utterly disqualified from even calling himself a Christian. No Christian would EVER be in support of abortion because abortion is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
So Gomez is entirely correct to note that Biden would advance moral evils. Biden is morally evil himself and there is NO defending him, no matter what one tries to do. The Left views evil as good and good as evil and when in power, demonstrate it at its worst.
I pray that we will one day crush the evils of the Left and make abortion as morally detestable as the Holocaust, seeing as abortion is a holocaust in itself.
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”
A sign of the Left buying into the b.s. that they are selling is that those who advocate for the genocidal practice of abortion no longer feel the need to feign any humility or sadness about the subject. In the past, they pretended as though abortion was a “necessary tragedy”, a “necessary evil” which is not pretty but “had to happen” for the sake of someone, namely the mother.
They used to say they wanted “safe, legal, and rare” abortion to make it appear as though what they advocated was logical and fair, but didn’t push the envelope too much. “Safe”, “legal” and “rare” are what they used to say to make it appear a moderate position, implying that even they did not like the procedure, but felt as though, in the grand scheme of things, it was a necessary evil for one purpose or another.
Nowadays, women are encouraged to “shout” their abortion and celebrate with glee as states and countries make legal the homicidal practice. They celebrate the holocaust that is abortion and believe that most people are with them in this regard.
Why else would misguided (at best) Argentinian women celebrate the legalization of abortion in the first large Latin American country to do so? Why else would Satanic lawmakers and politicians in New York celebrate the legalization of abortion through the third trimester and making it a Constitutional right for women to get an abortion in the state?
What they used to say is that they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. In reality, they just want it to be legal. They couldn’t care less about it being “safe” because murder is never safe. That “safety” is never extended to the babies which are brutally murdered. “Safety” was not their goal. Regulation was.
They didn’t want women to kill their own babies through DIY means. They wanted women to kill their babies at their slaughter houses so that they could get paid for it. They wanted to profit off of it and profit they have.
And “rare”? Why would they want to make rare their most used and profitable service? It serves them well, make plenty off of it, and get to enjoy the sickening thrill of killing another person without having to suffer the consequences or penalties associated with murder.
This is like allowing drug dealers the legal ability to sell their supply in schools. Why wouldn’t they be happy about it? Why would they try to deter it at any capacity?
In a recent interview with the WaPo, Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson pushed back on the MSM source’s attempt at downplaying the den of killers’ reputation as being America’s largest abortion provider: “I think when we say, ‘It’s a small part of what we do,’ what we’re doing is stigmatizing it. We are a proud abortion provider… abortion is healthcare.”
So they are not at all ashamed at what they are doing because now, the narrative is that abortion is not even a “necessary evil”, but an outright GOOD AND POSITIVE thing. They have tried to rationalize and justify it, but anyone with a heart recognizes that abortion is anything but a rational, justified, good or positive thing. It’s murder, and even some pro-abortion devils are beginning to be okay with even acknowledging that.
Now, what prompted me to write about this at all is an article from The Federalist, about how “Abortion Supporters Are No Longer Lying About Their Cruelty.”
In that article, the author talks more in-depth about the situation in Argentina, and about how there is a picture (right below) of a 10-year-old girl at a pro-abortion protest stepping on a baby doll:
What girl does this? Now, I can hardly judge the actions of a naïve 10-year-old, seeing as she likely does not know what she is doing here or just how evil this is, but she must have had parents dragging her to this event and teaching her all kinds of horrible things.
Even my own mother, when she was a child in Argentina, was taught by her mother, my grandmother, that babies in the womb were “basically just Jell-O.” The implication, obviously, being that they are not people, just a random clump of cells and tissue, not too different from a cancerous tumor.
But even then, young girls tend to play with dolls like that one in the picture. Maybe not quite as much today, given how technology and tablets have basically taken over for toys for children, but girls her age and younger still usually play with such dolls and show care and some amount of love for them.
Even a news anchor in Argentina, named Viviana Canosa, recognized what it is that young girls tend to do with such toys:
“You know, we didn’t know if we would be mothers or wanted to be mothers, but we used to play with dolls. We put them to bed, we gave them something to eat and cared for them. We role-played mom & dad with our girl friends: ‘Hey can you [take] care of my baby? I’m going off to work!’ That was our childhood. And this photo is disturbing to me. It is the antithesis of what I experienced in the [pro-life] March of Two Lives this weekend.”
Such behavior is not natural – it is taught. Women are supposed to be protectors of their young; care-takers. But you can see the hatred that has been taught to that girl. That is an act of hate. Again, can hardly judge her very harshly for this, seeing as she’s just a dumb little girl, but this is the kind of behavior that, if not corrected, she will carry for the rest of her life. Unless taught and shown otherwise, she will grow up to be hateful of children and delight with glee at the thought of their deaths.
But make no mistake: the pro-abortion crowd was always this cruel and inhumane. They’re just now coming around to admitting it to some extent or another.
The author of that Federalist article concluded his piece by saying: “It’s worth asking how the pro-abortion movement in the United States and abroad has become so inhumanely cruel. The darker truth, however, is that it may simply be shedding its false veneer to reveal the evil that was always there.”
There is no “may” about it. It is. At the end of the day, fundamentally, these people were always advocating for murder. Whether they were cognizant of this or not, and whether or not they admitted it, they were advocating for the termination of life.
It was perhaps a bit more excusable before technology allowed women to see their unborn children through ultrasound, since the major argument for Roe was that unborn children are not alive, but with this invention, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for the continued advocation of infanticide.
The science is settled on this one: babies in the womb are alive. They have their own unique DNA code, separate from that of their parents. They eventually develop heartbeats and brain activity. They grow lungs which they don’t use yet, but will do so once out of the womb. They have everything we would recognize in a human baby. That there is continued advocacy for abortion despite the evidence of human LIFE shows you how inhumane, cruel and evil the advocacy always was.
That they are beginning to drop the “necessary tragedy” and “safe, legal, and rare” aspects of it is not what shows the cruelty of the abortion movement – they are merely symptoms of the overall disease.
They are convinced now that most people are with them with regards to this issue and are beginning to make the foolish decision to out themselves for what they are. Now, I can’t blame them for thinking they have such massive support. Pop culture, regular media and social media make it look as though the Left is massively popular and that their view is the mainstream view. They couldn’t be more wrong, however.
Though they try to make it look good and positive, the truth remains that abortion is murder and murder is still generally seen as a massive taboo which must be punished. These people have to lie to get people on their side, so exposing themselves for what they are and what they stand for is not going to work out in their favor, particularly as the only real reason they would do so is because they have bought into the idea that they are the mainstream view and opinion.
They have banned conservative voices from their platforms and as a result, believe that everyone else who is left agrees with them. A foolish leap in logic, but these aren’t the most logical of people.
But that they even think of exposing themselves for what they are shows you that it was just a ruse that they sought “safe, legal, and rare” abortion or that it was a “necessary tragedy.” They are killers for profit, not too different from hitmen.
Do not let them fool you: They are of their father, the devil.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...