Why does #PPact Virginia support “raping” women prior to abortions?

From a 2008 Planned Parenthood Virginia document opposing a proposed ultrasound requirement law (bolded emphasis added by me):

The legislation is not about women’s health and healthcare. It is a thinly veiled attempt to shame women about their decisions or to intimidate them into changing their decisions. If legislators truly cared about womenís health, they would support prevention measures, like full access to birth control, including Emergency Contraception, access to family planning, and quality sexuality education.

• Mandating that a woman view an ultrasound is not about healthcare, as illustrated by the use of the words “unborn child” rather than the medically-accepted term “fetus”. This legislation is about shaming a woman about her personal, private choices.

• Whether or not to view an ultrasound is a personal, private decision that should be made by a woman in consultation with her healthcare provider.

• Planned Parenthood believes honest communication is essential to a healthy providerpatient relationship. We are committed to helping women make their own informed and responsible decisions.

• The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a leading women’s health organization, does not require an ultrasound during the first trimester as a medical necessity, although it is Planned Parenthood’s policy to perform an ultrasound before providing an abortion procedure.

Read that again: “although it is Planned Parenthood’s policy to perform an ultrasound before providing an abortion procedure.” Bbbut, I thought that was considered “rape” by … Planned Parenthood and their supporters? I mean, after all, that “vaginal probe ultrasound” might have to be used in certain instances and, and …

Life News’ Steven Ertelt has much more on Planned Parenthood’s hypocrisy on the modified Virginia abortion law. Make sure to read the whole thing, and then marvel once again at just how utterly and deliberately cruel and deceptive abortion supporters are all over again.

Where’s the MSM/left wing outrage over *BO* using Christianity as a basis for beliefs?

Seeing as the mainstream media  with – sadly – the help of the anti-Santorum Matt Drudge – is waging a full-scale assault on Rick Santorum’s social and religious views (which often go together) in an effort to derail his campaign on the implied basis that Santorum is a fringe freako lunatic who would turn America into a theocracy immediately upon being elected President, it’s important to remember that President Barack Obama used his Christian faith, in part, as a strong basis for some of the policies he’s advocated.

You’re thinking “yeah, right”, right? You don’t just have to take my word on it.  He admitted during the course of his Presidential campaign that he was a strong believer in spiritual mentor Reverend Wright’s message of “social justice” – which should have been a clue to most Americans as to his belief system.  Below are more examples:

March 2008: Then-candidate Obama to a pastor on the issue of gay marriage:

On Sunday in the Appalachian town of Nelsonville, Ohio, where plant closures and the mortgage crisis are rippling through the economy, Pastor Leon Forte aimed his own double barrels at Obama, asking the candidate to explain (a) what he would do about the foreclosure crisis and (b) his faith.

“Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians,” Forte, who heads up Grace Christian Center in Athens, Ohio, told Obama. “They believe in the social agenda that you have. They have a problem with what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test about who is worthy and who is not.”

Obama tackled the easy part first -– how to clean up after the burst housing bubble and help struggling Americans keep their homes.

Then he talked about Jesus Christ and his own controversial minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (who has praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan), along with same-sex marriage and abortion.

“I am a Christian,” Obama responded in low tones. “I am a devout Christian. I’ve been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”


Still, he said, “my faith is important to me. It’s not something that I try to push on other people. But it’s something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

While Obama said he does not believe in same-sex marriage, he argued strongly for civil unions that allow same-sex couples to visit each other in the hospital, let them transfer property to each other and protect them from discrimination. “If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which, I think, is, in my mind, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

October 2007: Candidate Obama, pandering to a black Christian audience in South Carolina:

During the nearly two hour service that featured a rock band and hip-hop dancers, Obama shared the floor with the church’s pastor, Ron Carpenter. The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be “an instrument of God.”

“Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics,” Obama said. “Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God.”

He finished his brief remarks by saying, “We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”

Interestingly enough, from that same CNN piece:

There are times on the stump when Obama even sounds like a pastor himself, referencing New Testament phrases and sometimes saying “I’m not gonna preach to ya!” when emphasizing a point to his audience.

According to the religion-based Web site Beliefnet.com and its “God-o-Meter” tool that measures “God-talk” in the presidential campaigns, Obama invokes religion more than any of his Democratic competitors.

More recently as in a few weeks ago, President Obama went the “Jesus was a liberal” route by asserting that He would be in favor of taxing the rich:

President Barack Obama on Thursday tied his proposal to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to his faith, telling leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said at the Washington Hilton, delivering remarks at an annual event that every president has attended since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him,” Obama said. “Avoiding phony religiosity. … This is especially important right now when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”


“When I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us,” Obama said, “I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody, but I also do it because I know far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years. And I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Where was the red-faced outrage from the left over these remarks? Where has the blood-curdling outrage been from the mainstream media over Obama’s tendency not just to use his twisted interpretation of God’s word as a basis for policy but to, even worse, to cast himself in the role of Jesus Christ?  Oh, they don’t care – because they believe  he’s “The Messiah” as well so  it’s “move along here, nothing to see.”  The double standards are disgusting but not surprising to anyone who has watched the mainstream cover, coddle, and attempt to rehabilitate over and over again the “healer” image both Barack Obama and his wife disturbingly have tried to portray to the American people.

And let’s not forget other high-profile politicos who have tried to use their warped in interpretation of the Word to justify their policy positions on other hot button issues – like  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has done more than once on the issue of abortion.  Like Senator Babs Boxer has done regarding the issue of “man-made global warming.” I could go on and on, but you get the point.

An important thing to note here is that it’s perfectly ok to have a belief system that has been largely shaped by your religious background, upbringing, and experiences.   It’s also ok for you as a candidate for public office to note publicly that the views you have on a particular issue are based, in part, on your religious influences.  In turn, you should expect to be questioned by all sides when it comes to those views if they conflict with the views of voters and/or are particularly controversial.  Questioning candidates for office is, of course, ok, too.  In turn, candidates need to be prepared to answer those questions, and also need to be prepared for the likelihood that their answers will not please everyone, and will in some cases only lead to more questions.

What’s NOT ok, however, is for left wingers and their allies in the mainstream media to act like only Republicans wear their respective faiths on their sleeves.  So-called “progressive Christians” do this as well, and have done so even more frequently in the last several years as they try to win back “faith-based voters” – and as liberals try to justify their positions using backwards interpretations of scripture, the only people who take them to task for it are people like me who get extremely concerned when they hear both candidates and politicos alike assert a Biblical basis for a policy which doesn’t jive at all with what God’s Word actually says.  On the other hand, though, Christian conservatives like Rick Santorum are called to task for every faith-based assertion ever made, as if they’re secretly planning to make the United States of America a theocratic state — and the answers they give are never good enough to please their critics in the MSM and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself).

Ultimately, the last thing most of us want to see is a battle over religion between presidential candidates in the primaries, and in the general.  But if they are, both sides must be treated equally by both the press and liberal Democrats in order for it to be a fair debate  — which  is never going to happen.  Because it’s ok for liberals to use their interpretation of God’s Word as a basis, in part, to advance a “progressive agenda” of “social justice” (for the cheeeldren!), but it’s “unconstitutional” for Christian social conservatives to do similarly in an attempt to advance a conservative agenda based on traditional American values — “because we must respect the separation of church and state!!!!” ….  or something like that.

Is there any issue, any at all out there, on which liberals have not shown themselves to be wildly  hypocritical about at some point??

Statism: Obama’s theory of government

**Posted by Phineas

Peter Wehner had a good post in Commentary last week that, while talking about Obama’s latest risible budget proposal, neatly encapsulates the statist, progressive view of the relationship between the citizen and the State, Obama’s theory of government:

These numbers are important, but they need to be understood above all as a manifestation of a particular philosophy, which some have called reactionary liberalism. Barack Obama has an almost undiluted attachment for and belief in the wondrous powers of the federal government. He believes the role of the state is to redistribute wealth and level out differences. He would trade off greater prosperity in all classes and income brackets in order to narrow the gap in income inequality, which he considers to be a moral offense. Obama wants to punish wealth creators, empower unelected bureaucrats, undermine private enterprise and centralize power.

Beyond even that, Obama wants government to weaken, and eventually replace, civil society, create greater dependency, and expand the state’s reach into every nook and cranny of life, including into the internal life of the church. And at a time when Medicare in particular is driving us toward a Greece-like crisis, the president opposes any modernization of our entitlement state and savages those who are offering up reforms.

More than any president in our lifetime, Barack Obama identifies the state with society and wants society absorbed by the state.

(Emphasis added)

Wehner calls it “reactionary liberalism,” (1) but I think Goldberg (channeling H. G. Wells) names it best: “Liberal Fascism.” The State becomes the arbiter of a vague “Will of the People” (or “Spirit of the Nation,” or whatever), speaking for the collective and knowing better than the individual what the individual needs, for the good of the whole. Forget the goosestepping images of Nazis or Mussolini’s Blackshirts, and put side the insane racial nonsense the National Socialists added to Fascism; reactionary liberalism/liberal fascism can come with a warm smile and a motherly embrace, promising all sorts of wonderful things, if only you’ll be good and let Nanny State make the choices for you.

It is the infantilization of the individual citizen.

And it would be so easy to say “yes,” which is why, in 2012, we have to say “no.”

RELATED: In a later post, Wehner cites another example, that of Nancy Pelosi’s opinion on the HHS mandate and the proper response of religious organizations: “Shut up and obey.

(1) Although, really, the most reactionary people I’ve ever met have been supposedly broadminded liberals. Mildly challenge even one of their dearly held dogmas (such as the success of the New Deal or the desirability of abortion on demand), and many go into full frothing-and-shrieking mode. It’s almost Pavlovian.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)