PHOTOS: “Feminist maturity” takes serious nosedive at OK personhood bill protest


Sigh. Another day, another fanatical pro-abortion “feminist” politico displaying just how seriously she should be taken when it comes to debating pro-life/”pro-choice” issues:

Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre held up a sign at the protest Tuesday that said “If I wanted the government in my womb I’d f — a senator.”

Here it is (language warning – obviously):

Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre poses with a protestor during a rally opposing the Personhood measures at the state Capitol, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012. Photo by Sarah Phipps, The Oklahoman

Yeah. TWO grown women, one an elected official from the state of Oklahoma, held up that sign.


“When I saw that sign out of all of those signs, I was like, I’ve got to have a picture of it,” said McIntyre, D-Tulsa. “I thought if my 87-year-old mother sees this, I’m going to get hell this weekend, but it was too late.”

McIntyre was one of hundreds protesting anti-abortion legislation on the north steps of the Capitol.

She said the sign was brought by protesters from the University of Oklahoma and she grabbed it for a photo.

She said that while the language would probably be offensive to some, the real issue is the Republican Party attempting to take away the reproductive rights of women while at the same time preaching less government.

“I would hope they would have that same passion about how offensive it is for the Republican Party of Oklahoma to ramrod, because they have votes to do so, bills that are offensive to women and take away the rights of women,” she said.

Hmm. You know what pro-lifers find really offensive, Ms. McIntyre? You and other pathetic pro-abort politicos who trivialize the very serious moral “debate” over whether or not life begins at conception by engaging in shameless political stunts designed to mislead, misinform, and confuse the very constituents you CLAIM to represent in your position as an elected official. This is particularly harmful to women because, instead of being honest about the contents of the bill under discussion, as well as honest in stating the actual intent of the bill writers and your own true intentions, you and/or your colleagues attempt to make a mockery of the process in which laws are debated and/or voted on in this country – as fellow Oklahoma State Senator Constance Johnson recently did:

Also present at the rally was Democratic State Senator Constance Johnson, the woman who gained fame and girlcrushes when she attempted to attach a provision to the Personhood law that would bar men from ejaculating in any place other than inside a woman’s vagina.

“Girlcrushes”? No doubt this is exactly the type of cultish hand-holding, fist-pumping reaction attention-seeking “feminists” like Johnson and McIntyre seek when they take to the floor and streets to express “solidarity” with the pro-abortion movement under the guise of “women’s health.” What an absolute embarrassment that, after decades of REAL feminists fighting for women to have a say-so in public policy both at the ballot box and in public office, there are female politicos who use their positions of power and influence in such a deeply juvenile manner not befitting of the office. It’s really no wonder so many women in this country are slavishly devoted to the “right to choose” cause – hey, it’s edgy! Neat! Cute! Hip! It’s about WOMYN! It’s about CHOICE! And it’s especially COOL because our celebrity President is also a staunch abortion “rights” proponent! YAY ME!

Lost in all this, of course, is the actual issue itself: Is conception where an unborn baby’s life actually starts? While never addressing this issue directly – a calculated tactic by “feminists” worldwide, some pro-aborts do sometimes actually take the time to address the “is it a baby” issue in their own little “progressive” way, as referenced by another creative sign from today’s protest:

Gay fetus

A sign is pictured during a rally opposing the Personhood measures at the state Capitol, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012. Photo by Sarah Phipps, The Oklahoman

Oh, if only I could have been there. My sign would have read: “If the fetus is gay, would you support it being aborted on the basis of its sexual orientation, or would you discriminate?”

Their answer, as you should know by now, would be “yes, I would be ok with someone aborting on the basis of sexual orientation just as I would be someone doing so on the basis of the baby’s sex, because the right to terminate your unborn child is sacrosanct above all other rights, including the right to life!!!!!”

With all that in mind, doesn’t it boggle the mind at how liberals, especially those in the “women’s rights movement” are almost always portrayed as the “mature” and “compassionate ones”? Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on the way you look at it), we all know better – on both counts.

Could 1st-year contract law derail ObamaCare?


**Posted by Phineas

Oh, this is interesting, to say the least. The Institute for Justice has filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) in the ObamaCare case soon to be heard by the Supreme Court. The crux of their argument is that the mandate compels the individual to agree to a contract, but, under centuries old (1) precedents and principles of contract law, all contracts must be voluntary and no contract made under compulsion is binding.

Here’s video of the IJ’s Elizabeth Foley, a constitutional law professor (2), explaining the issues at hand:

And here’s the crux of their argument:

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle.

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

I have to say, this looks like a solid line of attack, albeit I’m not a lawyer. But, if it’s true this attacks a fundamental, longstanding, hoary principle of law, this may be what it takes to push Kennedy and one other moderate-to-liberal justice to strike down the mandate.

Any legal eagles in the audience care to read the brief and comment?

via Hot Air, where Ed has some good commentary.

(1) Seriously. Not only does it cite cases from the early Republic, but even from English case law of the 17th century. Made my History-geek heart flutter with delight, it did.
(2) A real one, unlike the current president.

UPDATE: Fixed the broken link to the amicus brief, thanks to Conservative Woman in the comments.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

See Ya: Senator Olympia Snowe announces retirement


Via CNN:

Washington (CNN) — Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine announced Tuesday she will retire rather than seek re-election this year.

The decision was made “after an extraordinary amount of reflection and consideration,” she said in a statement.

Snowe, who turned 65 last week, was first elected to the U.S. House in 1978 and then to the Senate in 1994. She is the first woman to serve in both chambers of a state legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Snowe was known as a moderate who sometimes sided with Democrats in the increasingly partisan environment of Washington politics.

Her statement cited the partisan divide.

“I have no doubt I would have won re-election,” Snowe said, describing her political service in Maine and Washington as “an indescribable honor and immeasurable privilege.”

While her motivation and sense of responsibility remain, she continued, “I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions.”

“Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term,” Snowe said. “So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate.”

Initial reaction from Senate colleagues indicated Snowe’s decision was unexpected.

“I am absolutely devastated to learn that Olympia has decided not to seek re-election,” said a statement by fellow Maine Sen. Susan Collins, also a moderate Republican.

“I know this was an incredibly difficult decision for Olympia,” said Collins, who lauded Snowe as “a leader who sought solutions, not political advantage.”

Here’s Senator Snowe’s statement on her retirement.

A question has been floated around on Twitter as to who Collins will team up with now that her moderate pal Snowe is retiring after this term – the answer is easy: Whoever the Democrat is who eventually will replace her.

I didn’t think we had a chance in you-know-where that we’d pick up the Senate this year, and Snowe’s retirement makes the likelihood of that happening even more remote.  And while on one hand it’s good to have around even a moderate Republican like Snowe for most procedural votes, it’s important to remember that even the procedural vote pluses are canceled out when colossal errors in judgement – like her decision to vote ObamaCare out of committee (video hat tip: Dr. Melissa Clouthier), which set it up for eventual passage – become all too common.

As Michelle Malkin says here: “DLTDHYOTWO!” Indeed.