Planned Parenthood: still a bigger liar than Wendy Davis

“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…”

That’s a quote from Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe, the woman whose Supreme Court case resulted in the legalization of abortion in the United States.

The abortion industry is based on a lie. The abortion industry thrives on lies. The abortion industry depends on lies. The abortion industry is an Empire of Death, built upon a foundation of lies.

So is it any wonder that America’s new Abortion Mascot, Wendy Davis, has turned out to be — get ready for this — a liar?


When politicians lie, we will often very politely refer to it as a “mischaracterization” or a “misrepresentation” or a “misstatement,” but I think “lie” is a much simpler way of putting it. Wendy Davis isn’t a micharacterizer; she’s a liar. What else could we expect? The woman catapulted herself to national stardom by delivering an epic pro-abortion screed for over ten hours. She used late term abortion as the fuel to rocket herself into the spotlight. She delivered her Death Manifesto — her Mein Kampf — and it made her a mainstream sensation. Lies? Evil cannot be communicated in any other way.

If lies did not exist, there would be no Hell and there would be no abortion.

She painted a picture of herself as a woman who’d overcome great obstacles to eventually achieve the distinction of being the 90 millionth liberal feminist to exploit the death of children for her own personal gain. You know, just your classic American Success Story.

Unfortunately, some of the facts here are “blurry.”  She claimed to be a divorced teen mother who lived in a trailer and eventually paid her way through college.

In reality, she was never a divorced teen mother. She divorced at 21, lived in a trailer for only a few months, moved to an apartment, and eventually married a lawyer. Her second husband paid for her last two years at college and for her time in law school. Here’s a fun morsel she seems to have omitted from her autobiography: she divorced him the day after he made the final school payment. The initial divorce filings cite Wendy’s adultery as one of the reasons for the split. The courts awarded custody of her two daughters to her husband. She then ran for Fort Worth city council.

Finally, after such a harrowing journey, she stood up in pink tennis shoes and spent half a day explaining why babies should still be executed after 20 weeks.

Inspiring, isn’t it?

Davis, of course, deflected criticisms over her lies and omissions, saying, “my story is the story of millions of Texas women.”

Wendy Davis’ story is the story of millions of Texas women? Really? I certainly hope not.

Millions of Texas women get their law degrees paid for by their rich lawyer husbands, who they then divorce before becoming an extremist shill for Planned Parenthood? Millions? For God’s sake, what has Texas become? New York?

In some ways, though, Wendy’s tale is very much par-for-the-course. It isn’t the story of Texas women, but it is the story of the abortion business. They both lie to get what they want. They both paint false narratives because the real narrative isn’t quite so palatable.

Take Planned Parenthood, for example. Planned Parenthood lies as a matter of policy. If you put a Planned Parenthood executive in a lie detector, the thing would probably explode. In fact, it would be much easier to list the few times a PP official has told the truth about something. That list would likely begin with the PP lobbyist who openly endorsed infanticide during a Florida legislative committee hearing, saying the decision to kill a baby who survives an abortion should be left to the doctor and the “patient.” Patient, in this case, refers not to the dying baby, but the mother.

(Side note: Planned Parenthood responded to the controversy this sparked by dismissing the whole discussion as “speculation about a vague set of extremely unlikely and highly unusual medical circumstances.” Do you notice the irony? Pro-abortion advocates often attempt to corner pro-lifers by bringing up “life of the mother” scenarios, where an abortion would be required to save a woman from certain death. THAT is “speculation” about “unlikely and unusual medical circumstances.” The pro-aborts are the ones who argue abortion almost exclusively by tossing around the hard and rare cases. The hypocrisy never ends with these people.)

Honesty from Planned Parenthood is like a New York Jets Super Bowl appearance — it only happens once every 50 or 60 years. That’s why we’d have to go back to the mid-20th century for another example: A 1950’s Planned Parenthood brochure admitted, in an attempt to differentiate the procedure from other birth control methods, that abortion “kills the life of a baby.”

Well, on that we agree, Planned Parenthood.

And that’s it. That’s all I have in the “truthful” column.

On the other hand, If we wish to discuss PP lies and deceptions, we could break it down on a minute-by-minute basis. We could talk about the lies by omission. We could talk about their refusal to empower women with all available information before taking their money and their child’s life.

We could talk about their reckless protests against laws that would merely require them to offer an ultrasound to a woman before performing an abortion. These are rules that would only hold Planned Parenthood to the exact same standards already imposed on every other part of the medical field.

We could talk about the case in Illinois where they built the largest abortion mill in the nation, under false pretenses.

We could talk about the undercover video that shows a Planned Parenthood manager advising a pimp on how to best procure “services” for his underage prostitutes.

We could talk about Planned Parenthood’s claim that Kermit Gosnell was a rogue outlier; an aberration who only existed because pro-life activists forced desperate women to seek out his services. We could dismantle that notion by pointing to the Planned Parenthood facility in Delaware that was put under investigation after two nurses resigned, citing “ridiculously unsafe” conditions and “a meat market style of assembly line abortions.” In the span of a few months, five women were sent to the hospital as a result of botched abortions at the clinic. Meanwhile, there’s the kindergarten teacher who was killed by an abortion performed by Dr. Carhart in Maryland. In the same state, two other abortionists had their licenses suspended for killing another woman through a bungled abortion. Also last year, a woman at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin became the eighth patient to require emergency medical attention after an abortion at the facility. In Austin in the same year, three former workers at Aaron Women’s Clinic in Houston went public with evidence of horrific illegal abortions and infanticide by Dr. Douglas Karpen.

Read about many more cases, all similar to Gosnell, here.

We could talk about Planned Parenthood’s penchant for fraud. Fraud, like the Medicaid scam that that ended with Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast paying a 1.4 million dollar settlement.

We could talk about Planned Parenthood’s habit of not reporting rape to authorities. A habit that got them into significant trouble in Louisiana, where the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals cited three different clinics for failure to report child rape. At least one of the guilty establishments has since closed down, which will tragically hinder some women’s ability to be severely injured in an unsafe procedure conducted by quacks who only got into the abortion business because they couldn’t hack it in real medicine.

We could talk about these things, and so much more, but I’m already pushing 1300 words and I haven’t even gotten to the point. So here it is:

Out of all the lies that stream like rivers of blood and sewage from corporate Planned Parenthood, the worst, most brazen, most obvious, and most influential has been this one: “Only three percent of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortion.”

You’ve heard that one a time or two, haven’t you? I bet, regardless of how thoroughly I debunk such silliness right now, several people will still reiterate the statistic in the comments below. That’s because the line is just that — a line. It’s something they say, and it gives abortion proponents something to repeat. They put it on the music sheet and their chorus sings right along. How many of them have taken the time to verify the claim? Not many. Probably less than three percent.

Planned Parenthood arrives at the “three percent” figure by employing a little bit of blatant misdirection. First, they “unbundle” their services. This means that a woman can go in and get an STD test, a pregnancy test, and some birth control, and Planned Parenthood will count this as three “services” performed. Next, they give all of their services the same weight. So if a young lady gets an abortion and then, on the way out the door, grabs a free condom, Planned Parenthood will say that she received two services, granting equal status to both. This would be like a car dealership selling 7 vehicles, as well as 7 sodas from the vending machine out front, and vaguely chalking it all up to “14 items sold” for the day. Then imagine them stating that selling cars only accounts for “50 percent” of their business, while the other half constitutes Diet Coke distribution.

The next step in the “3 percent” deception is just plain ol’ pants-on-fire-lyin’. Planned Parenthood brings in about a billion dollars a year. Half of that is from taxpayers, leaving around 500 million non-tax revenue. From that half, they make at least 150 million dollars a year by aborting around 330 thousand babies. That means abortions account for about 1/3 of their revenue, aside from the money given to them by Daddy Government. Abortions aren’t anywhere close to 3 percent of their business. Only in Abortion Candy Land (the worst board game concept ever) could you get away with saying that a third of your revenue amounts to 3 percent of your business.

But there are other things that come closer to that 3 percent figure. Adoption referrals, for instance. In its most recent report, Planned Parenthood boasts around 2 thousand adoption referrals, against 327 thousand abortions. That’s 1 adoption for every 149 abortions.

When someone says “abortion is only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s business,” what they’re actually saying is, well, nothing. That statement has no meaning and no basis in reality. If you were a business manager for a private company and you used the same sort of math, you’d be fired within hours. Unless you’re a business manager for Planned Parenthood, in which case you’ll be the national director by next month.

So, Wendy Davis lied? Yes, of course she did. She lied about a lot more than her divorce and her stint in a trailer park. She lied the moment she stood up and positioned herself as a champion for women. In reality, she isn’t championing anyone but herself, and she’s stepping on the carcasses of dead infants in the process.

Planned Parenthood has been doing that for decades.

Wendy Davis, you learned from the best.


Find me on Facebook.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

681 Responses to Planned Parenthood: still a bigger liar than Wendy Davis

  1. jasonjshaw says:

    It’s like anything, the extremists on either end of the spectrum will do whatever is necessary to push their view across.

    • vince konsavage says:

      “extremists”? those who promote a “middle-ground” in this controversy are typically unable or unwilling to consider any issue they find uncomfortable – how is it possible for a “middle-ground” to exist with legalized abortion – the baby either lives or the baby dies and i cannot envision anything in between except perhaps major injury –

      i know it can be a hurdle, but the only thing anti-abortion folks push is that the “moderates” actually take time to think about what is happening – is that “extreme”?

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Well, there are the anti-abortion activists that attack clinics and those using clinics where abortions take place. I hope you don’t condone such hateful actions.

        Also there is middle ground as one end promotes abortions at any stage, while the other promotes the idea that it is murder at any stage.

        Not to mention that it is a fetus pre-birth, and a baby post-birth. There are also many stages of development as a fetus. There is plenty of middle ground to consider for non-extremists.

        And an extremist is someone who promotes an extreme side of an argument, typically seeing an issue as black and white rather than taking into consideration the full spectrum of the situation.

        Bottom line is, very VERY FEW people actually want abortions to be a regular practice. Many anti-abortionists tend to ignore focus on other factors that lead to abortion which is why there is such a backlash against the controlling nature of outlawing abortion. We should all focus on humanity for ALL people. Not JUST fetuses and babies, and not JUST mothers who are in a tough situation.

        This is why middle ground is important.

        • KnitWit says:

          Said the extremist who can’t even call a baby a baby until it’s out of the womb.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Are you calling dictionary writers extremists?

        • Kelsey says:

          I can’t reply directly to KnittWit so I’m replying here. “Baby” is an imprecise term, so it is not used in the same way as “fetus,” “neonate,” and “infant” especially in the medical realm. I’m 25 years old and my mother STILL calls me “her baby” from time to time. I don’t know what side of the abortion debate you come down on, but whenever someone says “It’s not a baby [person, human,life], it’s a fetus,” think of this statement: “It’s not an oak, it’s a sapling.” “Baby,” like “oak” (and “human” and “person”), is a broader term that includes multiple phases of the organism’s life cycle. Whether an organism is an embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, adolescent, or octogenarian, that is still a human person.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          I think I may have jumped a bit on the use of “baby”. I’ve seen enough inaccurate pro-life “information” that I think my defenses were up a bit much.

          My neighbour actually just told me a story today of a police officer he knows having arrived to assist the birth of twins to a prostitute. The prostitute flatly told him that she doesn’t know what to do with the children as she doesn’t want them. She already had 5 kids. That’s the gist of the story anyways. Add that to how troubled the foster care seems to be, ad so on.

          I’m all for reducing the reliance on abortion, but I don’t see guilt and prohibition as wise options in the greater scheme of things. It’s better that we keep connection with unsavory things rather than push them to the shadows where they can run wild unregulated. It’s better to build bridges than burn them.

        • Kelsey says:

          Jason, that sounds great, but think about what it really means. Abortion is the killing of a human being. Is that something we should “build a bridge” to? We don’t “build a bridge” to other kinds of killing, especially of innocent people who have committed no crimes. The foster care system is a mess and it needs some serious help, but that does not mean that killing babies is the solution. Instead, look for a private adoption agency. There are plenty that will help the birth mother select a good family for her child or children. Some ask the adoptive parents to pay for medical costs for the mother and some or all of the fees involved in processing the adoption. There are families around the block waiting for infants, and there are extremely few if any infants in foster care. It’s the older kids, sibling groups, and those with special medical needs that have a hard time finding homes.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Kelsey, are there really that many families looking for infants to raise? I know with the increasing acceptance of homosexual couples, there is a greater availability of parents unable to bring a child into the world who would cherish the opportunity to act as parents for someone in need, and I think that will improve the balance of the situation.

          I think we do have to be careful about mixing up the laws of humanity and the understanding of God through Jesus. Jesus built bridges to understanding how to approach things in a more humanitarian way, he educated those living in sin about the troubles of their sins so that they could move past their sinful ways. He brought education and encouragement to those who needed it while not guilting them for choices that they had made previously.

          Bringing guilt to others through condemnation only causes them the hide their sin in the shadows. That only increases opportunity for darkness to grow.

        • Kelsey says:

          Jason, there is a line of families around the proverbial block waiting for infants. Even without gay marriage, there are far more families wanting to adopt than there are babies.

          You make a good point regarding the laws of God vs the laws of man. That’s why we should endeavor to speak the truth in love–point out wrongdoing, and along with it forgiveness and healing. What we cannot do is pretend that killing someone for being a burden is acceptable.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          I’m surprised to hear that there is such a demand for infants. I was under the impression that unwanted children far outnumber those who wish to adopt. If this is the case, pro-lifers should be making a case for this! All I tend to see is the focus on calling abortion murder but not bringing awareness about the strength of other options such as this. These are the sort of bridges that need to be built, ones working from positive, uplifting aspects of the situation.

          I think that’s the trouble, many people tend to take to heart the pointing out of wrongdoing without offering viable options to be helpful and loving.

        • Matt says:

          Every pro-lifer will point out the very fact that adoption is always an option. They will also point out the fact that life begins at conception. It is murder at it’s very core, and should be treated as such. Pro-choice is not that at all, the choice is in whether or not to have sex. The pregnancy is a consequence, and unfortunately our society has debased itself so far as to believe that we no longer have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we make. I truly believe that if there wasn’t the option of abortion out there, there wouldn’t be as many women who CHOOSE to have sex without absolutely committing to the man they are with. This would then make it so that, like we had 60+ years ago, there wouldn’t be nearly as many “unwanted pregnancies”. But once again, our society has no morals, so this will never change and will end up collapsing just like all other democracies have in the past.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          I have my doubts that removing the option of abortion would make that much of a difference. It would make a difference to some, but it would also increase women seeking other, less safe ways of ridding themselves of their pregnancy. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

          But you are absolutely right, a culture of evading consequence and the glorification of sexuality are definitely significant factors in this problem. I suspect targeting those aspects for improvement would have a much greater influence on the population.

          But in reality, there is no simple answer. If society continues on the path of irresponsibility that it is taking, collapse is a worry, but in this age of widespread communication and connection, I am hopeful that together we will be able to learn from each other and the past and find ways to strike better balances in all aspects of life.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Also, I am curious where in the Bible is suggests that people should be hassled and tormented for their sinful choices. From what I’ve learned from the Bible, Jesus brings understanding through loving connection. He doesn’t do so with a plank in his eye.

        • KnitWit says:

          Wow, you got all THAT from my single-sentence comment? That’s impressive. Either you’re like Professor X and you can actually read my mind over the internet, or you’re making crap up. I strongly suspect it’s the latter.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Educated guess based on the strong conservative Christian readership of this blog.

        • Tony says:

          You’re right, Jesus would totally be for murders going unmolested by those that think murder is bad. We shouldn’t be getting all up in the business of a murderer and try to stop such behavior. Good take away.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Actually, the Biblical Jesus would likely speak with them and seek to shine some light on the situation in a way they would understand and lead them to a better decision. Or was there another Jesus in the Bible that I missed?

        • Tony says:

          Oh so you do agree he would say something, good to hear. And what if that person refused to listen at first and then attacked your beliefs because you asked them to stop murdering? You think he may have stepped it up a notch?

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Likely not, Jesus focused on bringing understanding to people in their situations to understand better the consequences of their actions, not yelling at people who didn’t do what he thought was right.

        • KnitWit says:

          We ARE talking about the same Jesus, aren’t we? Because the Jesus I know stopped Pharisees from taking a woman’s life, but He also trashed the temple courtyard and chased all the moneychangers out with a whip. He didn’t condemn sinners, but He didn’t spare any words for those who should have known better.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Well, as the Son of God the Temple is basically equivalent of home to Jesus, isn’t it? I don’t recall him going off in any other situation without actually leading others to understanding. That’s the key, a focus on understanding, which requires connection.

        • KnitWit says:

          So….it’s okay for YOU to be blunt, up-front, and a little rude about what you believe, but everyone else needs to be sweet and understanding about it?

        • jasonjshaw says:

          I’m more looking to shed some light on other perspectives and understand other perspectives better myself, as I have a difficult time comprehending how people can see one aspect of a situation as black and white yet ignore all of the other elements that play into it as if they don’t matter.

        • Curtis says:

          No, the bottom line is who gets to decide life and death for what is scientifically proven to be a human organism. THAT is what the abortion issue is about. Christians can have a religious or moral stance on the argument, but science also states that the “fetus” has the complete genetic makeup of a human being. Economics and social structure is also affected by abortion. Having had millions of abortions nationwide since it was made legal, America is short that exact millions of taxpayers, consumers and workers. America has lost doctors, inventors, teachers and entrepenures before they were even born. Those aborted children could have been your best friend growing up. Were I aborted instead of having been put up for adoption, a couple wanting a child may have been unable to adopt, and their brothers and sisters would have one less nephew, their children having one less cousin. A single abortion has the potential to change a family, a community, and a nation. It’s a waste of human life. To think “moderately” about that basic, scientific fact is to allow the murder of innocent life. You talk about “compassion for the mother,” but what about compassion for the society that is dragged down by a culture of death?

        • jasonjshaw says:

          You are only looking at one side of the argument though, not the complete picture.

          For all of those positive benefits to America you listed, you completely neglected all of the negative possibilities. All the children who would have greater difficulties adapting having been left with the question of why their parents didn’t care about them. The actions that would result of having not been brought into this world through love. The hindrances to society these issues would present. Sure the aborted children could have been a best friend, but they weren’t there so we connect to others. It’s not like a hole in society is left.

          Not to mention when an animal (or possibly any form of life) procreates beyond the sustainability of its environment, a large-scale die-off tends to result. In the short term abortions may be lost potential, but in the long term they may be prolonging life for your descendants.

          I’m not saying that the above is my view, I am only seeking to compliment your views with the rest of the picture. It is difficult to come to an informed decision when you are only carrying half of the information.

          When it comes down to it though, education and guidance to prevent the need for abortion in the first place is what we should be focusing on, as like I have mentioned in this thread, I am highly doubtful that there are many people that actually desire abortions. I think it would be wonderful if we could reduce the number of abortions by helping people understand sexual health and the repercussions of their personal choices from a view of honesty and dialogue.

          Has outlawing murdering stopped murders from occurring?

        • Tony says:

          How can you have a serious discussion about education and guidance on avoiding abortion when you have a society that says abortion is legal and should be considered acceptable.

          “Has outlawing murdering stopped murders from occurring? ”

          I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this line. Are you trying to say that murder should also be legal? Comparing abortion to murder only hurts your argument because it highlights the hypocrisy. We make murder illegal because to kill another human is immoral, and then punish those that do it. We make abortion legal even though it is killing another human and is immoral, but don’t punish those that do it.

        • jasonjshaw says:

          Why does it have to be considered acceptable if it is legal? Last I checked, smoking isn’t particularly acceptable yet it is legal.

          Point is, outlawing things doesn’t necessarily make them acceptable, but at least it allows us an opportunity to approach the subject without pushing it further into the shadows, as such an approach tends to create bigger problems. Take the USA’s war on drugs, for example. Essentially that was a big, expensive failure that has benefit organized crime.

          Also, it depends on one’s perception of when a group of cells are considered to be of the human form. I was reading something the other day that the Vatican has even flip-flopped on this issue at least a few times over history.

      • Phil says:

        Re. Vince Konsavage: good point about there being no middle ground on this issue. I think I’m going to start calling myself a “moderate”, and begin advocating for the maiming (but not outright killing) of unwanted, unborn babies. You know, just go in a take a limb or two….

    • Karen says:

      Please cite when anyone has been “attacked” while using a clinic. I would truly like to know how common this is. Oh…you aren’t seeing anything recently? Just people praying and sidewalk counseling? Hmmm. I guess that is pretty, extreme, huh? Wouldn’t want to give women a choice, would we? Also, just so you know, here is the definition for a fetus from Merriam Webster: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born. Yep, still a human. Just a pre-born one. So if the fetus is human, that means it must have some rights…correct? Or maybe it’s not valuable enough? Or too dependent? Or maybe, just maybe, you need to rethink your logic or we stand to take human rights from those who we don’t deem worthy.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Here’s a blog post speaking of the nature of some of these “sidewalk counseling” sessions. I hope what is described is not the common approach.

        Yes, I never said a fetus was not human. It’s a human in development, and there are stages in that development. We should keep an awareness of that.

        I’m not sure where my logic is in question, I am open to better understanding the situation in its ENTIRETY. I am not taking a stand on a narrow view, as the developing child is not the only one whose rights matter.

        Also, this conversation inspired a blog post of my own in reaction to the control that Christians tend to seek out over others, entitled “Why do Christians treat sinners so poorly?”.

        • Curtis says:

          The question of “rights” boils down to this: When do we actually have a right to kill another human being? I’m familiar with the “stand your ground” controversy and being allowed to kill a home invader under certain threatening conditions, which makes sense. That involves a “kill or be killed” scenario that I cannot rightly argue against. But a pregnancy is not a “kill or be killed” situation, at least over 99% of the time, and even in that less-than-1% the doctors HAVE been wrong about the situations before, proving they do not have infallible knowledge. So tell me, why does a mother have a right to kill something that has committed no crime against them but to exist? When does a mother’s right to kill infringe on an innocent’s right to exist?

  2. Roe vs Wade had nothing to do with logic–only an easy way out for men not to be responsible for their actions. And I blame men more than women especially the ones who sat on the Supreme Court bench forty years ago who ruled for abortion.

    Roe versus Wade was the turning point in our country. And
    that was a point in which the nation opened the door for evil to infiltrate.For that was the decision in which we deemed that a heartbeat was not life. And the concept of the decision was an abomination.

    A fetus heartbeat starts in a matter of weeks for the pregnant
    woman. And the woman doesn’t know she is pregnant until after the heartbeat has begun. This is not a Christian viewpoint. It is not a separation of church and state issue. It is a scientific fact. The heartbeat is there. And we gave license to end it.

    It is not just a matter of the issue being a woman’s body. I say
    this loudly. And trust me, this statement does not go well in the literary world of Leftists I reside in. But it is a fact. It is no longer just her body. It is two heartbeats. She no longer has the right to end one unless she is in physical danger herself. There are no other “what if” scenarios. The heartbeat trumps all.

    This was the opening to the downfall of our nation. And
    people like Cuomo, NARAL, Hollywood, intelligentsia and the rest of the Progressives lash out when we say it out loud. They are like a temper tantrum thrown by a child with cookie crumbs on his mouth who screams he was never near the jar. Because once we allowed abortion, why not allow everything else? Why not state gay marriage and adoption is normal? Transgender marriage is normal? Terrible behavior by our children is normal and to be accepted? Rampant divorce? Passing out condoms to fourteen year olds? Why not? We have already committed the ultimate evil–we end the unborn. Everything else pales in comparison.

    The results of this mindset that started with Roe vs Wade? A
    generation that has been brought up on the long acceptance of Roe vs Wade and all the other Progressive agendas? Well here it is. The youth is opening fire.Newtown, CT. Colorado. New Mexico. Philly. And yesterday Purdue. You have created a generation of monsters. A generation that plays the Knock Out game for fun. Can’t just be the guns Mr Progressive. The Knock Out game uses fists.But why would today’s youth engage in such violence? How would their minds get there to being with?

    Because you opened the door Supreme Court. You said it was fine to end a heartbeat. And then everything else became fine over the years as well.And now the young have no morals. They are amoral.I don’t have to prove my point. Newtown proved it for me. And so did the shooting at Purdue yesterday. Expect more. There is one antidote to the poison you
    have swallowed. And that is a return to decency. Not in a religious sense–just a pragmatic decency. And if we aren’t going to return to basic moral values then we can expect only more destruction as our nation plummets.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

    • vince konsavage says:

      in order to legalize the killing of the unborn one must first disregard the inherent value of human life – and once that state is reached any semblance of morality in the general sense becomes mute –

      you are so very right –

      • Thanks. Here was my answer to Cuomo who believes we should all just leave New York.
        A recap of where Progressive agenda has led us. The acceptance of all which has been propagated for the last forty years since Roe vs Wade which opened the door for everything else vile to flow through. What we are now after a generation of Progressive thought and agenda.

        We are no longer competitive in academics. We can’t produce an engineer or a doctor. Because it was better to feel good about yourself than be good in math.

        We have slovenly obese children because instead of taking the potato chips away we allowed them to sit in from of the internet while they consume a case of soda. And their obesity now as a “disease” therefore alleviating any responsibility on their part.

        We have fourteen year olds having sex because the Progressive thought it would be a good idea to pass out condoms in-between classes.

        We have seven year olds in Oakland that attempted oral sex when the teacher left the room for fifteen minutes. In my day that would have led to just talking amongst ourselves but what do I know. I’m not evolved enough.

        We have the Knockout game which is now killing people.

        We have shootings in schools

        We have a huge increase in teen substance abuse

        We have an epidemic of meth abuse across the country.

        We have a girl who stabbed her sister forty times because she didn’t feel

        We have a fifty percent divorce rate.

        We have record amount of people applying for disability–at forty-five

        We have teen motorcycle gangs that are randomly attacking motorists on the

        We have Miley Cyrus as a public concubine role model for the teenage girl.

        And then there is us Cuomo and De Blasio. Us right wing nutcases that believe in stable family, marriage between a man and a woman, the right of self defense, God as our guide and a heartbeat is life.

        Obviously we are the cause for our recent ills in the nation

        Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  3. D says:

    So why does she feel that living in a trailer park was some low that she should be pitied for or that she like totally overcame adversity because of it? OK it was only a week. Even more so, she is using it like she had to overcome some devastation just because it was a trailer park? That makes me kind of angry and I have never lived in one but it’s not like she lived in a homeless shelter or under a bridge, ok? It shouldn’t even be brought up. Do other candidates go, I lived in 400 sq foot studio? No. Have some of them at some point? Probably. Which is worse? We don’t know because saying trailer park should not be enough to get people to assume the conditions were below what the majority of americans live in every day. What a bitch.

    • Tony says:

      Trailer parks aren’t all that bad, there is a trailer park on Myrtle Beach. Some people prefer their own trailer over a cramped apartment and can get more square footage and more privacy with a trailer for the same price as the cramped apartment. And then it also provides the opportunity to move your home if you need to move jobs, it’s actually a smart investment for some people in certain financial situations.

    • rreactor says:

      Assuming that every thing delivered in the “rebuttal” by the Daily Kos (well known for unbiased reporting), does that make her support of virtually unrestricted abortion OK? Wendy Davis is an opportunist and if she were a man, her position on abortion and her track record would be wide open for scrutiny but because she is a women, those who challenge her are “sexist” and “misogynist”? Folks from this neighborhood where Wendy lives know what this is really all about and she made her bed and will now have to “lie” in it.

    • Sheril C says:

      I have learned to appreciate the beautiful irony of how the forces of evil in this world reveal themselves with their own evil behavior. It is so clear and easy to spot with those who have no values, no intellectual integrity and no rational thought to offer and so they rely on insults and the biases lie-filled reporting of “new media” who have proven their own corruption time and again. They are still dark and evil and yes, there is still a very upsetting side to that. But it is lovely how clearly they reveal themselves. It is beautiful the stark contrast between the light and the dark. There is no middle ground…only the evil and the good in their ongoing struggle.

    • Tony says:

      So there are two conflicting stories put out by Press releases, but you’re going to go with the assumption that yours is 100% correct and the opposing viewpoint is false? Is there any reasoning behind why you’re completely loyal to one instead of the other? Personally, I don’t really care about the background of my candidates, (well unless they have terrorists as their role models and were nationalized in a different country), I just care what their platform is. Pro-killing babies side of the argument is enough to turn me off.

  4. Cory says:

    In our on going abortion debate, it is important to remember that there are two distinctly different issues involved: the legal one and the moral one. They involve very different things, and so we should be clear in distinguishing between the two.

    The legal issue involves us deciding just how much, if any, the government should be involved in the process of the creation and preservation of new life.

    Government is all about the use of force, so this debate comes down to determining under what conditions force can or ought to be involved in sex and pregnancy.

    Should the government be able to dictate under what conditions people can engage in the act of creating new life (i.e. sex)? Should the government be able to dictate under what conditions new life can be terminated, and under what conditions it must be nurtured to birth? Or must that decision be left in the hands of the mother and the father?

    All tough questions. Lots of arguments on both sides.

    The moral issue, on the other hand, is not a discussion about the use of force. It is a discussion about right and wrong, about what a person ought to do, not what they must do.

    Here we don’t argue about pro-choice versus pro-life. Here we discuss the nature of the choice itself.

    Here we grant what is already known to be true. Regardless of what the law says, mothers will make their own decision, and will find a means of carrying out that decision. The choice is already theirs, and there is not much you can really do to change that.

    If commanded to abort, some will figure out how to give birth instead. If commanded to give birth, some will figure out how to abort instead.

    The legal issue deals with whether or not a woman has sovereignty over her own body. The moral issue deals with what type of sovereign she ought to be.

    When a woman gets pregnant, she becomes supreme absolute ruler over a nation of one (or more), and she has to choose whether she will be a good ruler who nurtures and defends the rights of her subjects, or if she will be a tyrant who kills her subjects based on her whims.

    God created this life as a test. When we die, he will ask us a single question: How did you treat others? It’s hard to imagine what kind of response or justification a woman could possibly give that would turn, “I killed my own child because it was inconvenient to me” into a passing grade.

    The best hope for our nation does not rest on us rescinding Roe vs Wade. Our best hope is in it becoming irrelevant because our women choose to be good and responsible sovereigns.

    • Way to ride the fence, there. LOTS of things are/were legal that shouldn’t be/shouldn’t have been. LOTS of things are illegal that aren’t/shouldn’t have been. That doesn’t mean we should ride the fence on them.

      As for what the one question that God will ask when we die? If you read the Bible at all on the topic, you can be assured that this question will most certainly NOT be, “How did you treat others?” In fact, you won’t even get to Him to have Him ask you a question if you don’t accept Jesus (NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through meJohn 14:6). No, the ONLY question you have to answer is with one single word–yes. That question is, “Did you accept that you could not save yourself, and that I died for you?” For me and my pithy/snarky comments and lack of patience and for your need to ride the fence, that’s REALLY good news. How did we treat others? That’s scary news because riding the fence instead of laying down your life/reputation to save the life of others hardly constitutes treating others kindly. Indifferent, maybe, but not kindly.

      • Mark Y says:

        You said:

        ‘If you read the Bible at all on the topic, you can be assured that this question will most certainly NOT be, “How did you treat others?” In fact, you won’t even get to Him to have Him ask you a question if you don’t accept Jesus (NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through meJohn 14:6). No, the ONLY question you have to answer is with one single word–yes. That question is, “Did you accept that you could not save yourself, and that I died for you?”’

        What happened to Matthew 25:31-46? Read it. Pray about it. Meditate on it. I guess your hypothetical [non-scriptural] question above has a lot more credence than the Gospel, huh?

        I tell you, what one DOES (and treating others is big in it) in this life certainly has big repercussions on where one will end up. Please, take your own advice and read the Bible you are talking about

  5. Pingback: Roe v. Wade at 41 | bluebird of bitterness

  6. chicagomom says:

    Two points:
    1. Wendy Davis and her husband separated and filed for divorce when she was 19. It’s true: the paperwork wasn’t finalized until she was 21. Not sure why it is considered a “lie” that she said she got divorced at 19. This is nit-picking.
    2. Planned Parenthood is a not-for-profit organization. I don’t understand the implication that PP “makes money” or “profits” off of abortions (non-profits can not distribute profits). Why would they make such efforts to make birth control affordable and available if this were the case? The main goal of the organization is to make health care accessible to women (routine gyn exams, pap smears, breast exams, and so on). It is often the only health care that poor women receive.

    • Kelsey says:

      Do you happen to know how much Cecile Richards makes?

      • chicagomom says:

        People who work for not-for-profits have salaries. That is not news.

      • Jackson says:

        I’m a bit curious how much dies Matt Walsh make from this blog? How much does Joel Olsteen make a year? How much do the great Waltons of God’s store Walmart make? (BTW They can’t afford to pay their employees a living wage….lots of them are on Medicaid). If this was a right wing CEO, you would be awed by his wealth.

        • Kelsey says:

          I don’t believe that Matt Walsh or the Waltons claim to be nonprofits. However, Osteen (as well as the executives of Susan G Komen and other high-dollar charities) have come under fire for making huge amounts of money under supposedly “not for profit” operations. My point is nothing new–simply this: Beyond a certain point, bringing home such a large salary starts to look a lot like profit.

    • oddmix says:

      Non-profits make profit all the time. That is what they are for. The designation simply means that the profits don’t go to owners or shareholders. The profits are used to further the objectives of the organization.

      • chicagomom says:

        If the “profits” are simply used to keep the organization running, they are not profits. As you say, profits don’t go to owners or shareholders.

    • KnitWit says:

      Links, please. And make sure you have more than just links to the Planned Parenthood website. Give us some links to back up those claims you took from the PP website.

      • chicagomom says:

        What claims? That Planned Parenthood provides routine gyn exams, pap smears and other services? I don’t understand this comment.

        • KnitWit says:

          You claim that PP does not take any profits. You claim that PP is the only health care poor women receive. You claim that PP’s goal is not to provide abortion, but health care. Do you always play dumb when you’re backed into a corner? Seriously, if you don’t know what a “claim” is, you probably shouldn’t be arguing on the internet. Or buying insurance.

        • chicagomom says:

          KnitWit, You don’t seem to know what a nonprofit is. It’s not something you just “claim” or don’t “claim.” It’s a legal definition. You have to file for a 501c3 status.
          As for PP’s goal: explain to me why they emphasize providing affordable/ free birth control if their REAL goal is to make women get more abortions? I’m sorry, but that’s just a silly, irrational claim (which you see all over the comments section here).
          Finally, the reason women without health insurance often go to PP is that it’s the only place they can afford to get birth control pills. People on the site don’t seem to understand what PP is like. It’s a just like doctor’s office. You make an appointment with a OB/GYN. However, the cost is incredibly low.

      • Dorrie says:

        After I graduated college, I had no insurance and worked for a temp agency. I always got annual physicals to make sure I was healthy, and when I called my regular doctor, her office told me an annual check-up without insurance was $120. I called Planned Parenthood, and a woman’s well-check was $35 (they offer a sliding scale depending on income). The woman who performed my well-check was a physician’s assistant, but she was great and I was good to go. I don’t think Planned Parenthood made a whole bunch of profit from my $35. So there you have it! Proof that Planned Parenthood is affordable. Of course, I am just a poster on the Internet, so you can call me a liar.

    • Sheril C says:

      Planned Parenthood is an organization that makes money and spends it to influence society (such as towards the renaming of, acceptance of and legalization of murder) and to accomplish goals (the murder of millions) and to employ and network with those who agree with their stance and their fight (all the employees who make their living committing or enabling murder). Calling them a not-for-profit organization does nothing to change the amount of money they bring in or the evil they do with it. It is a huge issue which rational thought cannot dismiss that they must and they can make money AND that they use that money to further their agenda which happens to be a murderous campaign. Just as some people object to not-for-profit groups that primarily try to do good in the world, many people object to a not-for-profit group that primarily tries to do evil in this world.

    • Sheril C says:

      oh and BTW, the cliche concept that so many have bought into in the past that it “is often the only health care that poor women receive” is another misdirection, a deceit. Having been a poor women who has been unemployed, has been a single mother, has been underemployed and has been uninsured, at various points I can attest to the truth of the matter. People who chose to only receive health care from abortion clinics and abortion advocates are making that choice not because it is the only possible course for them but because they are choosing to get in bed with evil. Many people do charitable work. And many people who are willing to benefit from charitable work that is not government mandated nor brought about by lies and most importantly not inherently connected to the murder of new lives. The desire of those who wish to have more murder to convince others that advocating for and enabling those murders is the only path to helping poor women is just one more in a super highway of proof of the deceitful nature necessary to advocate for and enable Planned Parenthood’s holocaust on the not-yet-born.

      • chicagomom says:

        Sheril, I understand that if you are opposed to abortion, you aren’t going to like Planned Parenthood. No one is hiding the fact that they provide abortion services. I get it. However, it is obvious from the comments I see here that there is an enormous amount of propaganda that is spread about the organization.
        Matt’s post is about honesty. So, let’s be honest about PP. They provide a variety of services (one is abortion). They are a non-profit organization. They provide routine, affordable health care to many women who couldn’t afford it otherwise. That is all. If you object to those things, fine.

        • KnitWit says:

          Back up your claims, please.

        • chicagomom says:

          KnitWit, Let’s look at the free services provided to families with incomes at 200% the poverty level or lower in NY: birth control, STD testing, GYN appointments, pap smears, screening for cervical cancer, etc. It’s called the “family planning benefit program.”

        • Marie Y. says:

          Just to be clear the NFL is a non-profit as well. Look it up. So claiming something is non-profit does not make it not profitable. I’m pretty sure we can all agree the NFL makes money and so does PP. They use their resources to influence politicians and further their cause. They use them to build huge buildings and pay executives.

        • chicagomom says:

          You know what KnitWit? Thanks to this exchange, I realize that I make “claims” all the time without any proof! Let’s take my birthday. I mean, I have a birth certificate and my parent’s word, but we all know how easy it is to fake birth certificates, right? Obviously, my mom might be a liar. Who knows if she even is my mom? And how about this blog? I could “claim” it’s written by Matt Walsh, but in all honesty, I have no proof. It could be written by a liberal sociology grad student at Berkeley who is writing a dissertation on social media. Who can say for sure? I’ve never met Matt Walsh. Have you? Also: maps. I’ve never been to all of those places, so how can I prove they are there? I know y’all think the president was born in Kenya, but tell me this: can you prove that Africa even exists? I’ve never been there. If I tried to take a plane to Africa, how would I even know that it went there? I don’t know how to fly a plane. How could I prove it? I might “claim” that I’m a mom who lives in Chicago, but you know what? I just might be Rush Limbaugh. Can you prove I’m not?

        • KnitWit says:

          What, chicagomom? Done ranting already? Please, do continue. I love it when my comments make people lose their minds and throw digital tantrums.

        • Curtis says:

          Abortion = death of human life. It’s basic science, and if this basic science is propaganda to you, I fear for your future.

    • Breast exams that many women can do themselves (not one mamogram). GYN/PAP smears that they would need a lot less of if they weren’t in the business of promoting the sexual revolution that caused most of the STDs/cervical cancer they treat. Pretty lucrative career, really. Promote something that you’ll need the cure that they provide later.

      • Curtis says:

        Reminds me of a fairly recent Family Guy episode where Carter had a cure for cancer locked away but didn’t distribute it, since he could make more money through long term treatments than he could off an instant cure.

    • Linda says:

      Oh! Sorry. Did I forget to use my indoor voice while laughing.

      • Linda says:

        …while laughing at Chicagomom’s belief in PP’s claims.

      • Jackson says:

        I knew I recognized that laugh…were you at the witch trials last Thursday? Were you in the God’s love through superstition and Ignorance punch bowl line? That was fun…. Don’t use PP if you don’t want.

    • Lisha says:

      Local health departments provide the same services without providing abortions. The NFL is considered a non-profit too….

  7. Pingback: interesting | links | articles | stories | blogs | Here I Link

  8. Ahstaroth says:

    Abortion has always been a conundrum for me.

    Mainly because most people think it’s wrong, “except this”, or “except that.” Except if the woman was raped. Except in the case of incest. Except if the woman’s life is in danger.

    If abortion is murder, then the circumstances of the pregnancy do not change that. There’s still a life in there, that is innocent no matter what happens. People treat “justifiable” reasons for abortion like it’s a self defense case. The idea that it’s less of a life because it comes from a bad person just doesn’t fly for me.

    At the same time, if MY daughter were raped, if MY daughter’s life was at risk, I am pretty confident my moral dilemma would go right out the window, and I might be glad that the option was out there. It’s tough.

    • Curtis says:

      The biggest fallacy of using such emergency situations to justify it is that those emergencies are, by a wide margin, the minority of actual reasons people get abortions.

  9. suzanneolden says:

    To all the death advocates on here carping the “you only care before they’re born” line of crap, try again. Go visit a crisis pregnancy center. They provide prenatal care, food, clothing (maternity and baby), and support to women and their children for up to 3 YEARS! They do it completely by donation and not by bilking the taxpayer. Do you donate to them? No, of course not, because they support LIFE. I’d be willing to bet you are anti-death penalty too, right? Well, your selfish “choice” is a death sentence for a child whose crime was simply being conceived. So my wish to “set women back 100 years” is simply a wish to let a child live, and yes, I put my money where my mouth is. Just accept it has nothing to do with “freedom” and everything to do with immorality and selfishness and at least we’ll be on the same page!

    • Kelsey says:

      The one I volunteered at in Houston also offered life skills, job skills, and parenting classes. Women could attend the classes to earn points (bonus if they brought a friend or family member), and the points could then be spent on baby food, clothing, toys, diapers, strollers, etc. In a hundred years, I couldn’t think of a better system to help women facing crises develop their personal skills, parenting abilities, and support network while providing for their material needs. Genius system, really.

  10. IT says:

    Thank you Matt. Please don’t stop spreading the truth, for the sake of women and their babies.

  11. karenzai says:

    The abortion industry thrives on lies indeed. And more insidious than lies are the endless stream of euphemisms they us. You’d think “reproductive choice” meant choosing whether or not to conceive, not whether or not to destroy a child already conceived. Or that “reproductive health” meant fixing faulty reproductive systems and ensuring healthy pregnancies, not puncturing uteruses and the skulls of perfectly healthy babies. I wrote a piece on abortion euphemisms:

  12. Tiffany says:

    I’m from Texas and previously worked as an adoption counselor, and I knew many birth mothers who had at least gone to an abortion clinic or had an abortion previously. Something changed them in how they felt going to that place, or why wouldn’t they just go back? If that was the best choice last time, then why shouldn’t it be again? Then there are some have many abortions too. However, you never hear women talk to the media or out in open about their personal stories of having an abortion saying things like, “That was the best choice I made.” Planned Parenthood lives on the lie that they continue to sell, and there is so much proof of that out there that you’d have to choose to be completely ignorant to not know anymore. Everyone should educate themselves with truth to get the big picture. There is no money made from the pro-lifers who are trying to encourage pro-life legislation. All their funds come from donations – not government or payments for services. The pro-abortion side is so full of money because they are backed with government $ and all those payments made by individuals who sometimes scrape up the money to get the abortions. They make millions to push their agenda and pro-life is just trying to scrape up donations all the time. Seems like an unfair balance to me, but most people never even think about it. Most of Wendy Davis’ governor campaign contributions have come from outside the state of Texas. That’s no surprise, but I know, as a Texas woman and the many Texas women I know, our story is not hers. Thank goodness Texas hasn’t become that terrible yet.

  13. OhWell! says:

    “We are no more like Satan than when we tell a lie”

  14. Robert says:

    Great post shared.

  15. Trs Edwards says:

    here is where you lose me.

    because your morals and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with the ‘value of life’ you dont even know how to define that statement.

    the value in a bull is hamburger, the value in a cow is milk, the value in a worm is as soil aerigation and bait…the fetus has no value unto itself. It is has the potential for value (and also the potential for great damage); but even feces (defecation) has the Potential for value if you put it in the ground with a seed.

    • mtrent says:

      WTF, Trs??? Are you saying that a fetus, baby, (whatever title you feel inclined to call it) has NO Value?? But feces does??? Excuse me, but an acorn has no value to the oak, or the forest? A lump of coal has no value to the diamond, or the jewelry it could be placed in? Equally, does not the fetus to the human being, or society have value? No wonder you are lost, you don’t think of yourself any more than a piece of crap.

      And no wonder so many are “lost” on this issue. When a seed is planted, and germinates it no longer is a mere seed, no it transcends that state and enters into a state of infinite value called “life.” Too many people on the wrong side of this issue don’t want to accept that truth, so they placate themselves, and others, with their “lies.” They don’t allow themselves, or anyone else for that matter, to call it “life.” Because calling it life would mean they are murderers. And that would just be unacceptable! So instead, they have got to figure out a way to NOT call it “life,” at every cost.

      If the price you must pay to NOT call it “life” is to brand yourself, and your other “lost” ilk no more value then feces, then so be it. At least we agree on one thing.

    • Kelsey says:

      So the entire value of a human being is based only on what he or she can do for society? Humans are not worms or cows. We are unique among the species due to a number of abilities, among them the very moral reasoning that lets us have this conversation. If human value is based only on usefulness, then obviously it should be acceptable to kill newborns who also bring no value to the world yet and the elderly, ill, and injured who have outlived their usefulness. Right?

    • KML says:

      How would you classify a person on any type of financial assistance? Have they not reached their “potential value?” Is it fair to end their lives?

  16. Reblogged this on ruthmeansfriend and commented:
    Matt Walsh — tells the truth — beautifully, piercingly, absolutely.

  17. Mom of 2 on earth and one in Heaven says:

    As a single parent, the only care I could afford on a sliding scale for my income was my regular health care through PP. Without it, I would have had none. As for those commenting about how PP allows women to continue the “free love agenda of the 1960s, really? There are countless reasons why women use birth control and not always to prevent pregnancy solely. And if women are utilizing birth control to prevent pregnancy the demand for abortion will go out the window, wouldn’t it?

    I find it interesting that a MAN who has never been in aposition of being pregnant be it from consentual or nonconsental sex is making accusations against Wendy Davis and against PP. That too me says it all. And most of you who are “pro-life”, well they need to change that to “pro-birth” because NONE of you are for services or help for single parents or those couples who have very little to help support their families and give them hands-up to improve their lives. That is a fact.

    And what ALL of you are missing is this – terminations AFTER 20 weeks are only allowed for those who do have a medical condition, the unborn is not compatable to life. As in, those parents were given the devistating news that their unborn had a condition that would not sustain life, their unborn would die shortly after birth, if their unborn made it to birth alive. Any other crap you see out there – is all opinion and just like this blog, full of truth twisted for their own agendas. Matt Walsh you are an ignorant fool a tool for whatever we don’t know. I would love to know where your “donors” are coming from? The Kouch Brothers? I bet you believe that when a woman is raped, she can’t get pregnant, that we can shut that whole thing down?!! I have a few choice words for you but I will not lower myself.

    As for the talk of the clinics where there were atrocities – here si the thing – the states they were located – every last one, should have regulated them. They received reports, they ignored them or somehow no one investigated? Those of us that are pro-choice want those regulations, we want abortion to be free, safe, available and RARE! We want our teens to be able to access education and birth control. We know if we educate our young people about birth control and reproductive health early – the likelyhood of them haveing sex early is greatly diminished. Case in point: Mississippi – their schools educate “absenance” and they have very few clinics in that state that will provide young people with birth control – result is highest teen pregnancy in the nation.

    If you want to tell me what I can do with my body as a woman, then I think we should also regulate men – and your masterbation too. Yes, I went there.

    • Bri says:

      Thank you.

    • Kelsey says:

      Did you hear about Wendy Davis’ filibuster during the Texas legislative session this summer? HB2, which has since been challenged in Texas courts, required a basic standard of medical care in abortion clinics: Doors wide enough to fit a gurney through, admitting privileges at a local hospital, and other requirements that would bring any facility performing abortions up to the standard of an ambulatory surgical center.

      Right now, too many clinics have ambulances pull up to the back door where they load in some poor woman they injured. They have to get her off the table, into a wheelchair (if they even have wheelchairs; I hope they do), and then out of the wheelchair into the ambulance. All while bleeding from whatever complication she suffered during the abortion.

      Wendy Davis stood for 13 hours and spoke against these regulations and others, claiming that they created an undue burden for these women who have the Constitutional right to have their children killed. Abortion supporters in the legislative chambers go SO LOUD that the clerk couldn’t be confident of the outcome of the vote, and we had to call ANOTHER special session to get the bill passed. Anyone who supports abortion (professionally) opposes basic regulations like these.

      HB2 isn’t the only example of this, either. There is a LONG history of bills introduced by pro-lifers across the country that would make abortions safer and/or rarer, and yet every single one of them is opposed by PPFA, NARAL, NOW, and other pro-abortion groups. Why? Because they don’t care if abortion is safe or rare, only that it is legal.

    • dorothyfox says:

      False. Pro-lifers donate great amounts of time and money to help single mothers. Pregnancy centers offer aide and community to mothers long after babies are born. Many pro-lifers (myself included) have adopted and foster children. But at the end of the day, what matters is that each new life has dignity….no matter what their unpredictable future holds. Once we can disregard that out of fear or convenience, we diminish the dignity of mankind as a whole.


      55 million abortions in 41 years is not rare.

      If abortion laws were only left up to women, there would far more restrictions, according to polling on the topic. So cool, leave men out of the discussion and law-making.

      Masturbation (wow, so racey of you…/sarc/) does not equal killing an innocent life. It’s not just about your body anymore but also the life of another.

      My condolences to you for your “baby in heaven”.

    • Tony says:

      I’m all for making masterbation illegal if that is what it’s going to take to have women stop murdering babies. I’ll give up drinking alcohol and watching TV. In fact, I really can’t think of much I wouldn’t give up to save the lives of millions of innocent babies that are dying at the hands of their own mothers.

  18. Lauren N says:

    More sexist drivel. Abortion is terrible, awful, and difficult. The women who make that decision never do so gladly. But they are capable of making the decision themselves, without men stepping in to tell them what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and how to make decisions about their health.
    You don’t know every single possible health circumstance someone could face (life-threatening,or not), so let’s let these capable people make their own health care decisions. Weird, how there are no major objections to medical procedures for men.

    Look at all the male politicians we are accusing of being bad fathers, of stretching the truth on their political backgrounds..oh wait. If Wendy Davis were a man of the same background, this wouldn’t even be news.

    • Tony says:

      Of course it wouldn’t be news, because if Wendy Davis was a man she would never have made it this far with what she has done. She would have been attacked for being a fraud far sooner and more severely.

  19. Clay says:

    I have never read a more succinct, articulate, and TRUTHFUL article in my life. I hope this article goes viral. Wendy Davis is a toxin that needs to be booted out of this great state’s political process. I hope this is the year I get to see that happen.

  20. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/29 | Free Northerner

  21. jay says:

    Murder is sin. Jesus was really BIG on not sinning, telling us to pluck out our eye and cut off our hand or foot if they cause us to sin. How anyone cannot see that terminating the life of a human being in the womb is murder is beyond me. Their conscious has been seared by their condonation of evil so that vile acts of bloody violence against the weakest and most innocent becomes a thing they must defend. How depraved must they be! America met the Wrath of God in the form of His abandonment in 1973 and we are seeing the fruits of a Godless and condemned generation coming of age. 55+ million dead children stand before God as our accusers.

  22. jaycheuvront says:

    Murdering children inside or outside of their Moms womb is a major sin. Jesus was REALLY BIG on not sinning, advising us to pluck out our eye and lopping of our hand or foot if they were causing us to sin. How an otherwise rational adult can condone and defend the willful murder of a child at any stage of development for any reason is well beyond my comprehension. We (America) met the Wrath of God in the form of His abandonment in 1973 and we are living with the fruits of that wrath. 55+ million children (residents of Heaven) stand in the presence of God as our accusers.

  23. Have you ever considered creating an ebook or guest authoring
    on other blogs? I have a blog centered on the same ideas you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information.

    I know my visitors would value your work. If you’re even
    remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.

    vente chaussures louboutin

  24. This is in response to a comment Jasonjshaw made early on. Here is the comment, I copied and pasted it to make it easy: “I’m more looking to shed some light on other perspectives and understand other perspectives better myself, as I have a difficult time comprehending how people can see one aspect of a situation as black and white yet ignore all of the other elements that play into it as if they don’t matter.” — As someone who is pro-life, and didn’t used to be, I can tell you that I thought there should be exceptions for women who received abortions. I thought they were unacceptable unless the woman was raped or if the baby was a product of an incestual relationship. But realizing that the baby is a human being, who had no choice in whether or not he/she was conceived, I realized to abort would be violating its rights, as a human being. Also, it’s not an imposing factor to the woman it’s an imposing factor on the unborn child. I hear argument a lot that carrying a child to term and then birthing the baby (naturally or by c-section) can cause serious health problems for the mother, but so can having an abortion, many women aren’t aware of the severity of these problems until AFTER the abortion has taken place and she’s suffering. Adoption is ALWAYS an option, if a woman is raped or gets pregnant with a child due to an incestual relationship she can always opt to give the child up for adoption (and there are several types so if she chooses to not be found (sever all ties once the child is born) that can happen. The baby should not be sacrificed because of someone else’s crime (rapist/inappropriate relationship). Also, one of the things that bothers me often is that many women choose to have sex without thinking about realistic consequences of their actions. Birth control, while used, is still never 100% accurate, a woman can still end up pregnant when she decides to have sex (protected or not). Each woman who decides to have sex but who has no plan for taking care of a potential child is being irresponsible. Too often women get pregnant from sex and decide to abort the child (again, adoption is an option) why should a child suffer because the woman decided to make poor choices? It’s NOT her life that abortion ruins, it’s the unborn child. (Sure, her life is scarred for it as mentioned above, but it’s not normally destroyed, like the childs.)

Comments are closed.