Just read via Twitter that today is Wendy Davis’ birthday (5-16-1963) and I wanted to take her a moment to wish her a very, very happy birthday surrounded by the love and gratitude of friends, family, and other supporters. May she wrap herself in the laughter, tears of joy, the special feeling from warm hugs and kisses of those she most cares about.
These are all things Ms. Davis can do because, thankfully, her mother chose life.
Ms. Davis, too, chose life so her children – who no doubt will be close by helping celebrate her birthday – could have the same opportunities she did.
In fact, everyone who attends the various party gatherings for the TX state senator in the coming days has also enjoyed the benefit of their respective mothers choosing life.
At Senator Davis’ glitzy out of state fundraisers, everyone in attendance who forks over the maximum amount in between sips of champagne and spoonfuls of caviar is there because their mothers chose life.
The make-up artists, fashion advisers, photographers and various media staff who pamper, prepare her, and interview her for glowing puff pieces – all of their mothers chose life.
When Ms. Davis holds on to a baby or young child for a political photo op that would benefit her campaign, it probably doesn’t cross her mind that the families of those children would probably have not considered abortion in a million years for their unborn – now born – babies/children.
Everything Wendy Davis does, all that those with who she comes in contact do – all of of their opportunities were presented to them and they are where they are today because their mothers chose to give birth to them, didn’t view them in any trimester as a “blob of tissue”, a “parasite”, or a “choice” – regardless of whether they were “pro-choice” at the time (and perhaps still are).
Ronald Reagan once famously said, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” Do abortion proponents like Wendy Davis really not grasp the irony of their collective position on the issue? These people are supposed to be our “intellectual betters”, wayyyy above us on the “smarts” scale – yet simple science on conception eludes them.
May Ms. Davis bask in the glory of this special day in her life – the anniversary of the day she was born into the world. The day she took her first breaths independent of her mother. The day she first smelled the fresh air spring brings. The day she first felt warm blankets and the soft skin of her mother holding her tiny body. The day her opportunities began. The kind of day 50,000,000 aborted unborn children in America since 1973 never got a chance to have, because of callous, pretentious pro-abortion advocates like Wendy Davis.
Now this is REAL feminism. I love it:
Iranian women are posting pictures of themselves online without headscarves and racking up thousands of Facebook likes in the process, the latest challenge to Tehran’s strict morality laws mandating that women keep their hair covered in public.
A Facebook page called “Stealthy Freedoms of Iranian women” showing hundreds of women without the hijab — a veil that covers a person’s head — has garnered more 142,000 likes. Women have used the hashtag #mystealthyfreedom to post pictures of themselves without headscarves riding bikes, dancing, or even sitting in flower beds, flouting rules that have been in force since the 1979 Revolution.
The page was started by journalist Masih Alinejad, who explained her reasoning in a May 3 post:
“This page is not only for women who are against the hijab, this is also for religious women who wear the hijab but don’t believe it should be enforced on people and think it should be a choice. So you if you are a religious woman who wears a headscarf but doesn’t think it should be enforced, please send in a picture of your friend, family member or daughter not wearing a hijab.”
More power to them! And to think we have women here who feel oppressed because they can’t get “free birth control.” Really!
I’ve done my part and have liked their Facebook page and will help them raise awareness on Twitter, too. All it takes is one person to make a change – but fortunately there are many Iranian women asserting themselves in this campaign to fight for the right to walk around with their hair uncovered. It’s one step. But it’s a big step. These women are bold, brave, beautiful and deserve our support. It’s hard for them to get the message across due to the Iranian government’s censorship of social media websites, so please do your part in helping spread the word worldwide of their movement, too!
I’ll just go ahead and warn you – if you read this article in full, you’re probably going to want to literally scream — or punch a wall. The “sex educator” featured in the article about actually FILMED her abortion in an attempt to erase the “stigma” that comes attached to an act that terminates the life of an unborn child. I’ll provide some excerpts for those too sickened to click the link:
I found out I was pregnant in November. I had been working at the clinic for about a year. It was my first pregnancy, and, full disclosure, I hadn’t been using any kind of birth control, which is crazy, I know. I’m a sex educator, and I love talking about birth control. Before this experience, hormonal birth control scared me because of complications I’d heard about from friends — gaining weight, depression, etc. So I tracked my ovulation cycle, and I didn’t have any long-term partners. I thought I was OK. But, you know, things happen. I wound up pregnant.
nce I caught my breath, I knew immediately I was going to have an abortion. I knew I wasn’t ready to take care of a child. The guy wasn’t involved in my decision. I called my supervisor and said, “Excuse me, I am going to need to schedule one abortion, please.” It was very early in the pregnancy, only two to three weeks.
Patients at the clinic always ask me if I can relate to them — have I had an abortion? Do I have kids? I was so used to saying, “I’ve never had an abortion but…” While I was pregnant and waiting for my procedure, I thought, “Wait a minute, I have to use this.”
There are three options for a first-trimester abortion: medical abortion, which is the pill; a surgical abortion with IV sedation, where you’re asleep through the whole thing; and a surgical abortion with local anesthesia during which you’re awake. Women are most terrified of being awake.
I could have taken the pill, but I wanted to do the one that women were most afraid of. I wanted to show it wasn’t scary — and that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story. It’s my story.
Had enough yet? No? Here’s the part that will make your head spin:
I knew the cameras were in the room during the procedure, but I forgot about them almost immediately. I was focused on staying positive and feeling the love from everyone in the room. I am so lucky that I knew everyone involved, and I was so supported. I remember breathing and humming through it like I was giving birth. I know that sounds weird, but to me, this was as birth-like as it could be. It will always be a special memory for me. I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.
I can’t figure out what’s worse here: “Emily” deliberately choosing the medical abortion and then filming it, the irony of her describing the extinguishing of innocent unborn life as “birth-like”, or the fact that she seems staggeringly oblivious to her callousness in casually describing the type of procedure that many on “her side” of the aisle would characterize as “cruel and inhumane” if done to a death row inmate.
National Review’s Wesley J. Smith comments:
Her bottom line message:
“I am grateful that I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt.”
But you know, sometimes guilt is healthy. Sometimes there’s a reason conscience knocks on our door. Sometimes it’s the first step toward gaining wisdom. And forgiveness. Because some things are just wrong.
And not just wrong – but immoral beyond description. There is a better way here. Abortion most definitely isn’t the answer.
I wish I could say I was shocked by this news but, sadly, I’m not (bolded emphasis added by me):
The state Health Department is failing to inspect many of New York’s abortion clinics — with some facilities escaping scrutiny for more than a decade, bombshell documents obtained by The Post reveal.
Health inspectors regulate 25 diagnostic and treatment clinics and surgery centers that provide abortion services — though pro-choice advocates say there are 225 abortion service providers in New York state.
Eight of the 25 clinics were never inspected over the 2000-12 span, five were inspected just once, and eight were inspected only twice or three times — meaning once every four or six years.
A total of just 45 inspections were conducted at all 25 facilities during the 12-year period.
By comparison, city eateries are inspected every year and graded, while a new law requires tanning salons to undergo inspections at least once every other year.
Frightening. Remind y’all of anything?
Disclosure of the state’s failings came after a Freedom of Information request by the New York-based Chiaroscuro Foundation. The organization was concerned about the safety of the state’s abortion clinics following the trial and conviction of Philadelphia late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.
Last May, Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of three infants who were born alive after botched abortions performed in his run-down West Philadelphia clinic. He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old woman who died from an overdose of anesthetic drugs during an abortion procedure.
Prosecutors and former clinic workers had testified to the decaying, dangerous operating rooms of Gosnell’s clinic, stocked with “filthy, corroded” instruments and outdated machines. Yet, as the almost 300-page grand jury report noted, Gosnell’s clinic had gone uninspected by state department of health officials for over 16 years.
Unfortunately, Gosnell’s “house of horrors” is not unique in the abortion industry. Abortion clinics across the country are under investigation for dangerous, unsanitary conditions that jeopardize women’s lives and health.
I’m sure the “women’s health advocates” like NOW, NARAL, and other so-called “feminist” groups will be all over this demanding more inspections and a crackdown on the lax oversight — just as soon as they get done protesting in states like TX and North Carolina over legislation designed to make abortion clinics safer for women by way of using ambulatory surgical center standards. /sarc
Get ready for the next round of “war on women” demagoguery. Bloomberg News reports that embattled Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) will be receiving some more Super-PAC help soon as the pro-abortion group Emily’s List has launched a political action committee here in North Carolina specifically to aid her in her reelection fight:
Emily’s List, a Washington group that advises and funds the campaigns of Democratic women who support abortion rights, has set up super-political action committees to independently aid candidates in North Carolina and Georgia.
And there are Democratic women who support abortion rights running for the Senate in both states: incumbent Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Michelle Nunn in Georgia.
The committees, “North Carolina Women Vote!” and “Georgia Women Vote!”, were created this week and can raise funds in unlimited amounts to independently aid candidates like Hagan, who’s seeking a second term, and Nunn, who formerly led the volunteer-service organization Points of Light.
“Georgia Women Vote will seek to educate women voters about the most pressing issues facing Georgia families in the 2014 election,” Marcy Stech, a spokeswoman for Emily’s List, said in an e-mail. Emily’s List has emphasized issues like equal pay.
In North Carolina, Republican groups have targeted Hagan for defeat in a state that President Barack Obama lost by 2 percentage points in the 2012 election. Americans for Prosperity, a limited-government group founded by industrialists Charles and David Koch, has run ads in the North Carolina Senate race more than 5,500 times, according to Kantar Media’s CMAG.
Since she wasn’t quoted in the piece, I suspect the Senator – who is on record as decrying “special interest” aka”dark money” in politics – had no comment on the “dark money” groups that have emerged to assist her. No surprise there.
While I’m not happy that liberal groups are upping their ground game to rally around Hagan, what will be good about this Emily’s List NC launch is that it will highlight Hagan’s little known pro-abortion record in a Southern state that is still reliably pro-life. The group will, of course, characterize Hagan’s stance as “pro-women’s health” while predictably denouncing whoever her eventual opponent is as a proponent of “waging a war on women”, but that’s easy enough to debunk as long as those opposed to Senator Hagan – including her eventual opponent – stick to the facts about her record and not allow militant feminists and their like-minded allies in the local and national mainstream media to set the narrative and narrowly frame the debate. Also, it goes without saying that the eventual GOP nominee needs to make sure to be prepared for the inevitable “abortion in the cases of rape” question. No more Todd Akins, please.
Obamacare is going to be the central issue in the North Carolina Senatorial race like it will be in many other key battleground states as Democrats attempt to maintain their hold on the US Senate for the final two years of President Obama’s time in office. Understandably, Kay Hagan doesn’t want to talk about it. Nor do her supporters. So don’t underestimate the ability of so-called “women’s rights” groups like Emily’s List to try to take the heat off of Hagan’s deciding Obamacare vote by working to shift the focus of the election from the job-killing legislation to a debate on “war on women” issues, a tactic that has played well for the left in states like Virginia. The key here for people who want to see Hagan out of office this year – and I count myself among them – is to be prepared to push back and push back hard. Starting now. Keep Obamacare as the Priority Issue. At the same time, be ready to accurately discuss Hagan’s history on abortion. Don’t allow her nor Emily’s List-type groups to get away with distorting her record on either. The best way to neutralize left wing talking points is to effectively counter them before they get started full strength so they can’t gain much traction in the long run.
I’m ready, North Carolina pro-lifers. Are you?
Via Kristine Marsh at Newsbusters:
Lest there be any doubt, Amanda Marcotte really hates pro-lifers. In a two-part rant posted March 14 and 17 on Raw Story, the morally challenged feminist writer attacked pro-lifers as “consummate liars,” “anti-choice kooks” with “boring,” “half-baked nonsense” and “shit arguments.”
But Marcotte’s hate doesn’t stop at pro-lifers. It extends to the babies they want to protect.
“Either way, what she [the woman] wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.” Did she just compare an unborn child to a cavity?
Yep, she did. And she wasn’t through, as Marsh also notes:
Marcotte then goes on a seriously mature rant about the reasons she does not want a child: “I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness.”
On the topic of adoption, Marcotte sums up her feelings simply: “Adoption? Fuck you, seriously.” That’s a heck of an argument.
About all you can do is pity and pray for cold, callous types like Marcotte who carry so much hot venom and red rage inside them that they simply can’t contain it. Unfortunately, she’s not the lone pro-abortion feminist with such blatantly heartless, unfeeling attitudes about the developing unborn. Most abortion activists think the same way, in spite of the moderate face they like to put on both themselves and the deadly procedure they routinely advocate.
This is who and what we’re up against, folks. Doesn’t hurt to be reminded of it every once in a while.
Much hay has been made over the last week over the campaign launched by Facebook COO and Girl Scouts CEO Anna Maria Chávez called “Ban Bossy” – a movement that supposedly seeks to “empower” young girls by symbolically “banning” so-called hurtful words that allegedly “hold them back” from wanting to take leadership positions when they get older:
Can banning one school-yard word really change the world? Sheryl Sandberg says yes.
Sandberg — the chief operating officer of Facebook and author of the best-selling book “Lean In” — is spearheading the launch of a campaign today to ban the word “bossy,” arguing the negative put-down stops girls from pursuing leadership roles.
“We know that by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead,” Sandberg said, “and if you ask girls why they don’t want to lead, whether it’s the school project all the way on to running for office, they don’t want to be called bossy, and they don’t want to be disliked.”
Sandberg said these attitudes begin early and continue into adulthood.
“We call girls bossy on the playground,” Sandberg said. “We call them too aggressive or other B-words in the workplace. They’re bossy as little girls, and then they’re aggressive, political, shrill, too ambitious as women.”
Sandberg’s organization Lean In is joining forces with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Girl Scouts USA CEO Anna Maria Chávez to launch a public service campaign called “Ban Bossy.” The banbossy.com website gives tips for parents, kids, teachers and others about how to encourage young female leaders.
First, let’s dispense with the myth that “by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead” – it’s simply not true. In fact, the opposite is happening in classrooms all across America as a result of what is now commonly called the “war on boys.” While attempts at empowering girls starting at a young age are widespread, the push to practically neuter young boys are also going on at a rapid-fire pace … with disastrous results:
Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.
Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.
Here’s why we need politicians to get past the pandering and posturing and propose solutions for the group truly in trouble: Boys account for three out of every five high school students who drop out of school. Boys make up 67% of the 5.8 million kids relegated to special education programs. The likelihood of any boy in special education graduating by age 21 is bleak.
Boys, regardless of race, ethnicity or economic class, are also more likely to struggle in reading. Forty percent of Asian fourth-grade boys who qualified for free or reduced lunch were functionally illiterate versus 32% of their female peers, while 37% of fourth-grade black boys who didn’t qualify for free or reduced lunch read at “below basic” proficiency, versus 26% of their female peers.
Young male high school dropouts are at least five times as likely to land in prison by adulthood than peers who graduate, according to Princeton University researcher Bruce Western, in part because boys who struggle in reading in first grade begin acting out and become discipline problems. They are also less likely to marry by the time they reach middle age because women with higher earnings don’t consider them marriage material. They are also more likely to have children out of wedlock, perpetuating the social ills that plague low-income black, white and Latino communities.
Educational and political leaders have long known the consequences of these boy troubles, yet have done little to address illiteracy and the other underlying factors.
Bingo. We’d rather conduct “feel good” campaigns where words are banned or … “taken back” (like “slut”?) and wage lopsided, hypocritical campaigns where girls are made to feel they can do anything while boys are feminized to the point they don’t know what to think or feel and as they grow into adults and become contributing members of society. Later, these same boys – who have now become men – are told by “society” that they are only allowed to have opinions on certain, select issues, with none of them relating to “feminist” staples like abortion, childcare, and other so-called “women’s rights” issues because, well, they’re not women, you see.
Which is where I call their bluff: Wanna contribute something meaningless to society by banning a word that has been used over the years as derogatory for both men and women? Fine. Have your little victory. But here’s what I want in return: If ridding the public discourse of words like “bossy” because they are “hurtful” to women ultimately makes them feel better about who they are, then let’s also rid society of this sexist notion that grown, educated men are not allowed to voice an opinion about right to life-related issues without unwarranted ridicule on the basis of his sex or … race, a despicable tactic I’ve seen used all too many times in recent history (“all I see is a bunch of old white men in elected positions trying to ban my right to birth control!!” is a common rallying cry). It’s an offensive tactic, not to mention – frankly – unAmerican. If we were to consistently go by this rule, then straight people in both major parties shouldn’t be allowed to opine on gay rights matters, and white people in both major parties should be told to keep quiet when issues involving the rights of black citizens pop up.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Every issue on the table impacts us all – some more so than others, and some more directly than others, but the bottom line is whether or not it directly impacts you or me personally, it DOES directly impact society, and we all have the right to express our opinions without the militant left constantly trying to use ridicule, shame, and other types of intimidation tactics to try and shut people up. And while radical far leftists do have the right to attempt shutuppery tactics on their political opposition, that doesn’t mean people should back down out of fear from speaking their mind.
Modern “feminists” want people to think they own and control the conversation on women’s issues, and therefore can set the narrative and parameters of the debate. The only way for guys to dissuade them of such a mindset is to keep talking, keep reaffirming that they won’t let them shut them up, demonstrate the value and (hopefully!) wisdom of their opinions. Men have wives or girlfriends, daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and other close female relatives, friends, and colleagues so it’s natural they’re going to have opinions on pro-life issues, birth control, sex education, childcare, dating, etc. To say their opinions aren’t important or relevant on the basis of their sex is to relegate them to the back benches of society, where women once were before the true feminists of yesteryear stood up and said “no more!”
The blatant hypocrisy of modern feminists in this regard is staggering. If only they’d pause from molding new generations of victim classes long enough so that they might actually be able to see it.
Because oppression or something!
— Rep. Stacey Newman (@staceynewman) March 11, 2014
Per Twitchy Team, Rep. Newman was on the floor of the Missouri House today to argue for “reproductive justice” or whatever. The bill she proposed ultimately failed on a party line vote in committee, so thankfully she’s got the warm and fuzzy … uh, crocheted item to console her at her work station where presumably she tries to conduct the people’s business when not acting like a complete imbecile.
Duane Lester at The Missouri Torch blog notes this isn’t the first stunt an elected Democrat at the state level in Missouri has pulled in regards to allegedly trying to “protect women’s health”:
It goes right along with Sen. Jamilah Nasheed saying on the Senate floor that government needed to stay out of her “va-jay-jay.”
One side is debating an issue of life and death. The other is bringing knit vaginas and street slang.
It’s all about deflection, folks. If “feminists” can keep you talking about “va-jay-jays” and crocheted uteri then they don’t have to address the much more serious issue at hand: The life or death of a developing unborn child which, if you think about it, could also be classified as a major women’s issue considering the millions unborn girls who have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade, and considering the appalling practice of sex selective abortions in countries like China and India where women are forced to abort their unborn babies if they happen to be girls – a despicable, immoral practice that may be gaining traction in the UK as well.
By why let the facts get in the way here? Please do continue on, liberal women, and keep demonstrating why high drama, deliberate demagoguery, and cutesy stunts are a poor substitute for serious policy debate. Dum dums.
Well, she’s flip flopping on everything else, so why not her signature issue, too? The Dallas Morning News reports:
Wendy Davis said Tuesday that she would have supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, if the law adequately deferred to a woman and her doctor.
Davis, a Fort Worth senator and the likely Democratic nominee for governor, told The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board that less than one-half of 1 percent of Texas abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those were in cases where fetal abnormalities were evident or there were grave risks to the health of the woman.
“I would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas,” Davis said.
But the Democrat said the state’s new abortion law didn’t give priority to women in those circumstances. The law allows for exceptions for fetal abnormalities and a threat to the woman’s life, but Davis said those didn’t go far enough.
“My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was,” Davis said.
Uhhhm, what? NRO’s Charles C.W. Cooke tries to make sense of it:
Sure, this is only a sort of “I support this.” And, in truth, her position doesn’t make much sense. But that the great hope of the abortion movement has been reduced to saying something like this at all is news in and of itself. Where has the great lion of “reproductive justice” gone?
As I noted last week, Davis has taken conservative positions on firearms, taxes, education, fracking, and a host of other issues. And now she’s giving ground on her signature song.
Paging Wendy, paging Wendy. Will the real TX state senator Wendy Davis please stand up? Rouge red tennis shoes optional …