Photo of the Day: Missouri Dem legislator brings crocheted uterus to work


Because oppression or something!

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.

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


Streisand pens note to Emily’s List supporters about being “lucky” to be born


Umm … well, this tweet sorta speaks for itself:

In case you didn’t know, Emily’s List is a “women’s rights” group that, natch, works to elect Democrat women who are pro-abortion. But yeah, Babs – you go on gushing about how you were “lucky enough to be born …”, ok?

Dum dum. o=>

Barbra Streisand

Not the sharpest tool in the shed … but a tool nevertheless.

Political chameleon @WendyDavisTexas softens on 20 wk abortion ban

Flip flops

Perhaps Ms. Davis should consider wearing flip flops next time she attempts a filibuster …

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 …

#NCSEN: Will #Obamacare plus pro-choice record doom @KayHagan?

Barack Obama, Kay Hagan

President Barack Obama is greeted by Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C. as he arrives at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Monday, June 13, 2011, in Morrisville, N.C. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Bad news hit the re-election campaign of Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) yesterday with fresh polling information out from Rasmussen Reports that shows her now definitively trailing two GOP candidates who want to take her place:

A new statewide survey of Likely North Carolina Voters shows Thom Tillis, the Republican speaker of the state House of Representatives, leading Hagan by seven points – 47% to 40%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Tea Party activist Dr. Greg Brannon leads Hagan by four – 43% to 39%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and 14% are undecided.

Hagan was elected to her first term in the Senate in 2008 with 53% of the vote but has come under increasing criticism at home for her support of the new national health care law. Republicans will hold a May 6 primary to choose their Senate nominee.

Earlier this month, even the reliably left wing NC polling outfit Public Policy Polling indicated that Hagan’s prior leads in match-ups with potential 2014 Republican candidates had evaporated.   Obamacare and Hagan’s unfailing support for it is largely to blame.  Hagan, who rode in on the Obama 2008 wave but who now does whatever she can to distance herself from him, has to be worried.

In spite of both President Obama’s and Senator Hagan’s repeated promises to the contrary, some 473,000+ North Carolinians lost their healthcare insurance as a result of Obamacare regulations and many more found out their premiums were rising by percentages in the double digits. So it’s no surprise that close to 60% of residents view the so-called “Affordable Care Act” unfavorably .  It’s also not shocking  how fast NC’s junior Senator – whose favorability rankings are tanking –  is trying to run away from it.  But while it’s clear this issue is negatively impacting the Hagan campaign, another issue that could also cost her voters this November is her staunch support for abortion.

North Carolina, like many states,  is one that is divided on the issue of the legality of abortions.  But while polling information on the issue is scarce, a 2011 poll taken by Elon University showed that over 60% believed abortion should be available only in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother.  A September 2013 poll, also conducted by Elon, showed that 45% of North Carolinians supported making access to abortion tougher while 41% opposed.  There is a clear pro-life tilt to this state that should concern Team Hagan.

Being pro-abortion in a Southern state is not exactly a badge of honor many Democrat politicians wear on their respective sleeves, and Kay Hagan is no exception to that rule.  Not only does she not mention her support of abortion on her campaign website (she covers it with vague language about “protecting and strengthening women’s health care” – which is code for “abortion”) nor on her official Senate page, but it was discovered recently that Hagan might be trying to cleverly disguise pro-choice donors on her campaign finance disclosure forms.  Why hide it, Kay?

With that in mind – plus the fact that she rarely talks about abortion outside of the abstract, the casual news watcher/observer would never know that Senator Hagan consistently gets a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, was endorsed by the pro-abortion group Emily’s List last year, and hobnobbed with Planned Parenthood at the 2012 Democrat National Convention, held in Charlotte, NC. In fact, it was recently announced by Planned Parenthood NC that Hagan was going to get the help of the national Planned Parenthood organization in her fight to keep her seat in the US Senate.

The Senator may talk a moderate tone on “women’s health”, but she certainly doesn’t walk it.  North Carolinians – especially those not yet born – deserve better.

Obama issues mind-numbingly contradictory statement on #RoeAt41

Obama confused


Let’s play “spot the contradiction”, shall we?

President Obama issued a statement today on the 41st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision by expressing his continued commitment to being one of the most radically far leftist Presidents on this issue in American history.  Here’s the statement in full (hat tip):

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Ummm .. did you catch that?  The President “reaffirms” the “right” of a woman to terminate her unborn developing child for any reason she sees fit because … “this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

Except for the innocent unborn apparently.

Honestly, who writes this bleeping garbage? He probably doesn’t even understand it most of the time. His statement actually ended up being one of a pro-life nature, and he probably doesn’t even realize it. Absolutely unreal.

From pro-abortion to pro-life: My #MarchForLife thoughts on #RoeAt41


(reposted from last year)

First, I’d like to say that I hate that the anniversary of this decison, which gave women the ‘right’ to terminate their pregnancy(ies), is on my birthday.

Second, abortion is an issue I find hard to talk about – not because I’m afraid to talk about it (I got over that long ago) but because it is an incredibly painful issue for me to discuss. Not that I’m alone in that; I’m sure it’s tough for a lot of people, mainly male and female pro-lifers, to discuss because of the moral issues, the visual images we’ve all seen of aborted babies, and the deep emotional commitment pro-lifers have towards saving the lives of the unborn. The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, having been on the ‘other side’ of the issue at one time helps me, I think, in being able to give a more understandable and (hopefully) believable insight into the mind of someone who is (in my case once was) pro-abortion, but before I get started, I’d like to acknowledge that I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the people I most often debate the issue with are those who are militant and unreasonable, and who make easily debunkable arguments, which I’ll explain in depth below.

The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use Photo courtesy of Kurt Rogers/SF Chronicle the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life – a human life – where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.

The attempt at reshaping the debate by using less inflammatory words is a common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. Oftentimes when debating abortion I’ll come across a staunch abortion advocate who will insist that it’s not a baby in a pregnant woman’s womb but a “blob of tissue” or “parasite” or “leech.” I wrote this last October regarding the changing of terms we use when discussing unborn babies or humans in a PVS, and I think it’s worth repeating today:

Viewing unborn children as a parasites is very similar to viewing patients in a persistent vegetative state as a vegetables. It’s a way to take the human aspect of the issue out of the equation. When you don’t view something as a human, it’s easier to justify your support of taking its life. Dr. Yacov Tabak, who helped provide the best care for his wife Marsi, who was diagnosed as being in a PVS in 1997, explains:

Dr. Tabak couldn’t bear the term “vegetable” when it was first presented to him, and since the Terri Schiavo ruling, says that some in the medical community have shown an ulterior, ugly side regarding this appellation. “There is a medical agenda with this term” Dr. Tabak contends. “It’s very difficult to get emotionally involved with a vegetable. To have a relationship with a carrot goes against human nature.

And to have a relationship with a ‘parasite’ goes against human nature, too. Viewing an unborn child as a mere pesky parasite makes it sound, to pro-abortionists, so much more ‘justifiable’ to terminate.

There are conflicting studies out there which show on one hand that ‘most’ women who have abortions are not emotionally scarred by it and feel relieved once it’s done, while others show that having an abortion scars a woman for life, some more so than others. The truth is somewhere in between, but make no mistake about it, the decision to have an abortion is not one that most women make in a snap. They think about it and agonize over it, and there’s a reason they agonize over it: because deep inside, they know it’s wrong. Last October, I blogged about a hospital in the UK that was discovered to have thrown aborted babies into the same incinerator they used to get rid of trash, which outraged not only pro-life groups, but some of the women who had abortions there, who thought it was a horrible way for their baby to be dispensed with, which tells you about how torn women who have abortions are between doing what’s right (keeping the child) versus doing what is convenient (aborting them) and the guilt which eats at them later. Women are reassured prior to the abortion that their unborn child will be buried or dispensed of ‘with dignity’ but why worry about the dignity of the child when you didn’t want it to begin with? If you’ve made the choice to abort your child, you have little room to complain when you find out how it’s been disposed of, but all the same the thought that women could be horrified to find out something like that happened to their unborn baby after they aborted it shows that they know deep down that what they did was wrong to begin with.

The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life – specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life – they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued state-funded abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system. When pro-abortionists say they don’t want the government involved in your sex life, what they’re really saying is they don’t want the government telling you that if you choose to be sexually irresponsible with your body, that there can be serious consequences for your behavior. What they want the government to do is to essentially condone your behavior by paying for your abortion, or paying for your child to be able to eat and have a roof over his head.

Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not – I repeat – not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website:

Against Abortion? Wear a Condom, Dude! $2.00


Against Abortion? Have a Vasectomy! $2.00


Not Every Sperm Needs a Name $2.00

These hypocrites also have the nerve to claim that they are pro-family! I don’t think I have to explain the absurdity of such an argument.

Also, you’ll find that most staunch pro-abortionists are the same people who will chain themselves to a tree in order to protect it or launch a campaign to ‘save the whales’ – it’s bizarre that they put more importance on life that is not human than life which is.

Photo of 10 week old baby courtesy of David Barlow/National Geographic's In the Womb seriesProbably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because every single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

My hope is that anyone who reads this and who considers themselves pro-abortion will revisit and reconsider why they believe in the ‘right’ to abort a child. I know people can change their views on abortion: I certainly did, and I don’t regret it for a minute. There is a lot of hypocrisy and senselessness involved in pro-abortion arguments. I know, because I used to make them.

More: Let’s take a look at a typical method of abortion, known as the D&E abortion, as described by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. This is what they describe as the ‘safest’ method of abortion and they perform them on unborn babies up to 18.6 weeks gestation (emphasis added):

You return to clinic on the day of your procedure. Before the procedure is started, a needle will be inserted in your vein and will stay there during the time you are in the clinic. Once the needle is in place, all the medications that you need will be given through it. These medications may include drugs to help you relax and reduce discomfort.

If used, the gauze and dilators will be removed. The doctor will give you a local anesthetic (numbing medicine) in your cervix, which will make the procedure more comfortable. The opening of the uterus may need to be stretched more, which will be done gradually with a series of narrow instruments called dilators, each a little larger than the one before. When the cervix is open wide enough, a plastic tube will be inserted into the uterus and is connected to a suction machine. The content of the uterus will then be removed by a combination of suction and instruments, usually taking 5-15 minutes. During and after the procedure, you may feel cramping as the uterus shrinks down to its normal size. The doctor then may do a final check with a spoon shaped instrument called a curette. Later, the doctor will examine the pregnancy tissue to check whether it has been removed completely.

Isn’t it sick the way they describe what’s in the uterus as the “contents” of the uterus or “pregnancy tissue”, rather than a fetus? This is what a fetus at 18 weeks gestation looks like (more here). Some “blob of tissue”!


What if the MSM scrutinized abortion procedures like they do lethal injections?



Last night by lethal injection of “untested drugs”, Ohio executed the brutal thug who, in 1989, raped and stabbed to death expectant mother Joy Stewart.  Naturally, the left wing advocacy media wants to let people know how inhumane and cruel they believe it was by giving a play by play of what the killer went through in his final moments.   Examples of headlines, along with excerpts (bolded emphasis added by me):

AP – Executed Ohio killer Dennis McGuire took 15 minutes to die with never-before-tried drugs

LUCASVILLE, Ohio — A condemned Ohio inmate appeared to gasp several times and took more than 15 minutes to die Thursday as he was executed with a combination of drugs never before tried in the U.S.

Death row inmate Dennis McGuire made several loud snorting or snoring sounds during one of the longest executions since Ohio resumed capital punishment in 1999.


McGuire opened and shut his left hand as if waving to his daughter, son and daughter-in-law. More than a minute later he raised himself up, looked in the direction of his family and said, “I love you. I love you.”

McGuire was still for almost five minutes, then emitted a loud snort, as if snoring, and continued to make that sound over the next several minutes. He also opened and shut his mouth several times without making a sound as his stomach rose and fell.

“Oh my God,” his daughter, Amber McGuire, said as she observed her father’s final moments.


A coughing sound was Dennis McGuire’s last apparent movement, at 10:43 a.m. He was pronounced dead 10 minutes later.

Previous executions with the former execution drugs took much less time, and typically did not include the types of snorts and gasps that McGuire uttered.

Columbus Dispatch – Killer struggles, gasps repeatedly under new 2-drug combination (newer headline: Inmate’s death called ‘horrific’ under new, 2-drug execution)

LUCASVILLE, Ohio — It wasn’t the terrifying, brutal death he inflicted on his 22-year-old victim in 1989, but Dennis McGuire did not go quietly yesterday.

McGuire struggled, made guttural noises, gasped for air and choked for about 10 minutes before succumbing to a new, two-drug execution method at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility near Lucasville.

There was no clear indication that the drug combination — never before used in a U.S. execution — triggered McGuire’s death struggles. But Allen Bohnert, one of McGuire’s federal public defenders, called the execution a “failed, agonizing experiment by the state of Ohio.”


McGuire’s death by lethal injection at 10:53 a.m. might have been marked by the “air hunger” that his attorneys predicted in legal moves rejected by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and declined for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The article in its entirety poses the implied question as to whether or not this was an inhumane death penalty procedure.

USA Today – Ohio execution drags on for 25 minutes (video report)

Many more headlines made note of the fact that the drug combinations used for the execution were “untested” … “raising questions” about the humanity of it.  Right.

Look, I get that there has been a long-running debate in this country over the death penalty. Opponents argue that it doesn’t deter crime, that it is “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore unconstitutional, and believe that the state should not be involved in exacting “revenge penalties’ that involve putting someone to death for the intentional death of another.  I’m not here to have that debate. In fact, for purposes of discussion let’s just accept all of those “justifications” banning capital punishment at face value without argument.

I only have one simple question, one simple request for the mainstream media: Will you ever cover the inhumanity of an abortion of an innocent unborn baby? The horrific procedures it goes through before it dies? If you’re going to advocate to spare the life of a convicted, admitted rapist and murderer because taking 15 minutes to die is “too long”, could you ever take the time to engage in advocacy journalism for the unborn baby, who, unlike the murderer, never got the chance at life?  Joy Stewart’s unborn baby was 8 months along when both she – and it  – were killed senselessly.  What differences – if any – do you see between an unborn baby that has been murdered intentionally by a killer versus an unborn baby whose mother has decided it’s inconvenient to have at that time?

If you’re so willing to talk about the “moral side” to capital punishment, why not open up the “moral side” of the debate on abortions?  Why is the issue of  the right or wrongness of abortion mostly”off limits” in the mainstream media outside of giving unquestioned deference to the “right to choose” crowd, and outside of bringing up the rare cases where the life of the mother or baby is at stake?  Most abortions – the VAST majority – are performed purely for convenience purposes. Why can’t we discuss that without being painted as “anti-women’s rights”? I AM a woman, dammit!

I don’t expect answers to any of these questions. But in light of the growing and strengthening movement by anti-death penalty types both in and out of the media to “respect” the life of a killer, I feel they should be asked all the same.   A killer isn’t innocent. An unborn child is.  The time to play the “sensitivity” card when it comes to how abortion is portrayed in the mainstream media should have expired long ago.  It’s time to scrutinize this procedure. Give us the facts, the brutal honesty, the graphic details of what happens to these babies as they’re aborted.  If the media thinks that a killer deserves leniency because he shouldn’t be subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment”, they should extend that same courtesy to the unborn.

BTW, the killer’s family plans to sue the state over the ‘suffering’ he allegedly went through during his execution.  Not making that up.

Update – 1:30 PM: Life News graciously published my piece on their site as well.  Thanks, y’all!

Tweet of the Day: @WendyDavisTexas vows to make investing in TX kids “first priority”

Wendy Davis campaign

Only born children matter to Wendy Davis –
not the unborn.

Wow. Not this again. Yeah:

Sure you will, Senator Davis … just as long as they’re fortunate enough to make it past the viability point while still in their mother’s womb, right?

Twitchy Team documented some great responses to the TX Governor-wannabe’s absurd assertion. You can read them here.

‘Feminist’ tool @AmandaMarcotte: “Taking antibiotics terminates more life than an abortion”


Ok. So this was said:

For liberals reading this blog thinking that “context” might make this sound better, um, no – it doesn’t. Click here and scroll for what I wish I could describe as “comedy gold”, but what instead in reality are the deluded, warped comments of an extraordinarily sad, bitter, unhinged, bigoted woman who is convinced men are the devil and that conservative women who don’t fall in line with her extremist belief system are nothing more than slaves to ‘religionism’ and patriarchy (sound familiar?). documented reactions to her comments and some of her exchanges with shocked readers to who she is completely and predictably unapologetic.

There’s nothing that can be said about her at this point that hasn’t already been said over and over again – including by yours truly:

As Twitchy indicated, she’s depraved – to say the least. All you can really do going forward is to pray for her that she one day seeks help. She really needs it.

Amanda Marcotte

”Feminist” Amanda Marcotte:
A ‘vagina demagogue’ in the extreme.