Dear Nancy Pelosi: Kiss my grits!

Posted by: ST on October 13, 2011 at 5:45 pm

Hot Air’s Tina Korbe recaps some disgusting remarks made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today on the Protect Life Act, which was hotly debated on the House floor. Pelosi said, both on the House floor and in a press conference:

“For a moment, I want to get back to what was asked about the issue on the floor today that Mr. Hoyer addressed,” Pelosi said. “He made a point and I want to emphasize it. Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”

What’s “appalling” is the fact that she’d make such an ignorant, inflammatory, demagogic accusation in the first place. National Review’s K-Lo sets the former House Speaker straight:

Pelosi is warping conscience protection for pro-life hospital workers into that appalling nonsense.

In truth, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act already requires hospital workers to do whatever is necessary to stabilize the condition of both the mother and her “unborn child” (the wording in the law) in an emergency room.

It’s also appalling nonsense to contend that it is only liberal women who can properly defend women’s health, which she also does.

Here’s what the Protect Life Act actually does – via The Politico:

The bill, called the Protect Life Act, would ban the federal funding for abortions and bar women from using tax subsidies from the health care law to buy insurance that cover abortion – except in cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother. It would also ensure that health-care providers are protected if they believe that performing abortion procedures clashes with their personal beliefs.

Life News has a more complete analysis of the bill here. Make sure to read the whole thing.

Pelosi, as you may have guessed, is not the only female Democrat politician shamelessly framing this issue in a manner that makes it look like the GOP “doesn’t care” about women’s health:

(CNN) — House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the abortion bill the House debated Thursday, arguing that if it passed, “women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”

The bill, the “Protect Life Act,” sponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts, amends the health care law to bar any federal funding for any plan that provides any abortion services. The House is set to vote on the bill later Thursday.

Democrats opposed to the bill charged that the GOP majority is ignoring the nation’s top priority and instead spending time on a bitterly divisive issue.

“Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans are continuing to wage their war on women,” California Democrat Barbara Lee said on the House floor.

Right. Even though GOP women support most pro-life measures in the House, the GOP is “waging a war on women.”


Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California, who revealed last year that she suffered a miscarriage and required a procedure to end her pregnancy, accused Republicans of being “absolutely misogynist” for bringing up the bill.

But Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, responded, “The misogyny comes from those who promote the killing of unborn babies.”

I suppose Rep. Foxx is a “misogynist”, according to Rep. Speier’s warped deductions.

I get really sick of these “feminist” women acting as though their party is the only party who is interested in “protecting women’s health.” It’s a flat out lie, and they damn well know it is. I’m also pretty fed up with them using code words like “women’s health” to mean “abortion.” Why not just say the word everytime you talk about “women’s health issues”? I suspect it’s because abortion is unpopular with a majority of the American people, so pro-aborts, as usual, play word games and avoid too many mentions of the word. Instead of “abortion” it’s “right to choose.” And don’t even get me started on how they object to being called “pro-aborts” – oddly by saying that asserting such things means they are “pro-abortion.” 8-| Yeah, I can’t figure that one out, either.

If this were any other issue it would be laughable, but considering the subject matter, it’s not. It’s really not funny the wool these “feminist” liberals try to pull over the eyes of the American people, especially women – and even more especially young women who are easily influenced by what they hear on TV, what they read in liberal media newspapers, etc. And perhaps the most sickening thing of all is how, for decades, liberal Democrat pro-abort women have raised millions and millions of dollars of campaign cash on the backs of 44 million aborted babies.

With the House’s Protect Life Act, pro-life medical providers can perform their duties without the issue of abortion weighing on their consciences. Pro-aborts, on the other hand, have pretty much made it clear that when it comes to a conscience, they simply do not have one.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


23 Responses to “Dear Nancy Pelosi: Kiss my grits!”


  1. TexasMom2012 says:

    Just when I think there is no possible way Nancy and the Demonrats could sink any lower, they have to prove me wrong once again… Does she get that Republicans are Americans too? How can any woman ever vote for these evil vile people? They have no problem when Obama voted against care provided to babies born alive after an abortion… Just Oky with leaving them in a closet to die! But somehow we are the party of death? Yes I believe in the death penalty in heinous cases and yes if you come to Texas and kill someone, we will kill you back but that is after a trail and appeals process of years. Where is the trial of unborn infants? Where is their due process? Democrats oppose the death penalty for criminals while supporting the death penalty for innocent babies AND to add insult to injury, they want the rest of us to PAY for it! Whackos!

  2. Phineas says:

    Typical Nancy: facts don’t matter and hyperbolic insults are a standard tool.

    Congress will be a much better place when she finally retires.

  3. John says:

    Everyone, even the Court in Roe v Wade, ignores the simple fact that neither party will say whether or not you have a right to privacy. The Court dodged the issue by hanging their hat on gibberish like viabilty, and so Roe was decided on a technology issue rather than a legal one. If, in fact, there is a right to privacy, abortion is legal. If not then it isn’t.

  4. John Bibb says:

    What else do you expect from a crooked SanFran politician who marches with a banner in the Gay Pride and Folsom Street Fair “events”!
    This was one of her more reserved comments / actions. Her constituents love her!

  5. Carlos says:

    If our country should happen to survive relatively intact from four years of socialist rule, pay attention to what has happened/is happening in the PRC. After decades of abortions, mostly to abort female fetuses/babies, there is a growing lack of female companionship for young bundles of exploding hormones.

    That in itself is fairly noxious, but the problem grows worse daily, and some day in the really not-too-distant future all those young males are going to demand the government start supplying them with the female companionship that has been denied them, so either many women will be forced by the state to become prostitutes or the state will have to get all those females from elsewhere.

    And what better way to get them and eliminate a percentage of the males than through war?

    Just a thought for all you pro-killing abortion rights folks out there.

  6. Dave B says:

    In the spirit of “compromise” I think we can bring the Democrats and Conservatives together on this issue. Let’s start referring to death penalty executions as “retroactive abortion” or perhaps a “Governor’s right to choose.” When we put them to death we could crush their skulls with forceps instead of letting them drift off to sleep. Then we can calculate their age by trimesters (we might need a professional mathmatician for some of these old bastards on death row for 30 years.) Then of course instead of giving them a proper burial we can just heave them in the dumpster. In order for the libs to fully accept my proposal I’d recommend that the Governor give the prisoner a complete pardon seconds before we put him to death, so he can be almost as innocent as a baby fetus.

  7. John says:

    I often find it hard to believe that any conservative can support the death penalty. Giving the power of life and death to the state is hard to justify when they can’t even manage to pave the roads properly. I am far more afraid of North Carolina as a state entity than I am of the odd murderer here and there. I know a convicted murderer, and I would rather share a foxhole with him than with any number of police officers I know.

  8. DV1252x says:

    Nancy Pelosi is clearly mentally ill. That is not hyperbole or exageration. I mean she is seriously mentally ill, disturbed, and delusional. The things she is saying are simply not congruent with reality. The woman should be removed by her colleagues. She is either having a break with reality or she is suffering from dementia of some form. Yes, I am serious.

  9. Ralph Gizzip says:

    I’ll make you a deal, John. I am a supporter of the Death Penalty as I believe it is a deterrent to certain criminals. It is a 100% deterrent to the criminals it has been applied to and could be an even better deterrent to other criminals if it was carried out in a much more timely manner.

    So here’s the deal, John. I’ll support a woman’s “right” to an abortion on demand when you can convict that fetus in a court of law of a capital crime. Until then abortion is murder.

  10. PE says:

    The wicked witch of the west speaks to her harkening leftists. They are in awe of her profundity.

  11. Carlos says:

    Just like gunmen who generally avoid non-“gun-free” campuses to commit their mayhem because they don’t want anyone shooting back, those receiving death penalties know they will probably have 25 to 40 years of life left when arrested, with the possibility of being released anyway when some activist judge decides their death is more “cruel and unusual” than the death(s) they caused. Ralph nails it pretty well.

    And BTW, the biblical commandment is “Thou shalt not murder,” not “Thou shalt not kill.”

  12. John says:

    RG, I don’t believe a woman has a right to an abortion. My question, which everyone dodges, is this; Is there a right to privacy?

    Carlos, most murders are crimes of passion, so the death penalty does not inhibit anyone there. The rest are too stupid to be inhibited by it. I am still more afraid of the state.

  13. Phineas says:


    I don’t believe a woman has a right to an abortion. My question, which everyone dodges, is this; Is there a right to privacy?

    Sure, there’s a right to privacy; it’s implied in the illegal search and seizure prohibitions of the 4th amendment, which was in turn derived from the “man’s home is his castle” doctrine as it evolved in English common law. We’ve extended it to a person’s body (and it’s one of the arguments against ObamaCare).

    But, the problem is not just one of an individual woman’s rights, but also the right to life of the unborn human being in her womb. Where do we draw the line between the right of the woman to live her life as she sees fit and the right of he unborn person to live its life at all? It’s not an easy question, despite what advocates on either side might say, but I lean toward strict restrictions on abortion, because (in my view) the right to life trumps the right to privacy.

    As for the death penalty, the difference is that we grant the state the power to kill someone only when that person has committed a horrific crime and his guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers, and even then only after extensive appeals to make reasonably sure no mistake was made.

    The unborn person, however, gets no such trial before execution: there is no jury, there is no counsel for the defense, there is no appeal. And yet the unborn human is executed on one person’s whim while having committed no crime — while being perfectly innocent. What happened to that being’s right to life?

    I’m not a religious person, so the “God says…” arguments have never swayed me*, but, as a matter of justice, abortion on demand strikes me as an atrocity.

    *(Although Dennis Prager, the radio commentator, makes an excellent argument for the morality of the death penalty from a Jewish persepctive.)

  14. Lorica says:

    Well I am a relgious person, and it is my firm belief that you cannot be a Christian and be a Democrat, due to this very issue. Also I am not against all abortions. Recently a friend was told she was pregnant and that the pregnancy was tubal. She was going to have to have an abortion or there would be a huge chance that both Mother and Baby would die. After much thought and prayer, I realized that there is grace for these types of situations and the Lord is well aware of the fallen state of this world. As far as abortion on demand or to enforce someone’s 1 child policy. It is flat out wrong. Since most abortions in this country have little to nothing to do with “women’s health” issues it is idiotic to use as a defense for abortion on demand.

    As far as John’s thought on the death penalty. Most Conservatives don’t want the death penalty for crimes of passion. It is letting the serial or multiple killers live that we are concerned about. Should a family who lost family members to a violent criminal pay to support the person or persons who committed the crime or crimes?? In some cases, the only solution is capital punishment. It is not like people are not well aware of the penalties of their actions. This is why I believe that all states should have a death penalty, it cuts down on the confusion. – Lorica

  15. MissJean says:

    Lorica, the tubal pregnancy is not considered an abortion (the primary action is to kill the child) but the unfortunate result of an action (removing the section of blocked tube in order to save the mother). It’s like the Good Samaritan who saves a person from a burning car but as a result the person is paralyzed from being moved with an injury; the rescue wasn’t an assault.

  16. MissJean says:

    Oops – forgot to add: The original American feminists – from Susan B. Anthony even to Victoria Woodhull – were anti-abortion. Alice Paull, who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment, absolutely hated that later feminists linked abortion to women’s rights legislation. It’s really fascinating to read some of their views, because they saw that it pit women against their children and removed men from the equation (and they knew that was a bad thing).

  17. Lorica says:

    Miss Jean I understand that. The end result is the same. The point I was making is that Nancy Pelosi is defending abortion on demand by using the argument of women’s health.

    I agree that the original feminists worked for children’s rights too. That their fight for rights were linked arm in arm to the rights of their child. Now Women’s rights virtually orbit this one issue, abortion. It is a sad state of affairs. – Lorica

  18. Carlos says:

    Is she drinking, or smoking funny vegetation, or shooting sugar, or what? Nothing she has ever said makes much sense but she’s completely off-the-scale incoherent now.

  19. Liz says:

    The baby killers protecting each other!

  20. JoAnna says:

    Lorica – actually, the end result is not the same. One (Methotrexate, for example, or surgically removing the child from the tube) directly attacks and kills the child. The other (removing the damaged section of the tube) removes the diseased organ causing the problem with the INDIRECT and UNWANTED side effect of the death of the child.

    Directly attacking the child is an abortion. Indirectly causing the death of the child while removing the damaged organ that is killing the mother is not. Google “Principle of double effect” for more information.