This headline ran this morning on Fox News' Erick Erickson's website. And the post, about the Kermit Gosnell case, is just as unhinged as the header suggests.
The Philly Columnist goes on to castigate people who restrict abortions. You wouldn’t have these freaks like Gosnell in a properly licensed clinic. The abortionist doesn’t keep baby feet in a jar like some PUA blogger carving notches on the bedpost when the government licenses the baby-killing so that it is civilized.
I’ll go ahead violate Goodwin’s Law here. The comparisons in my mind are apt. The silly Nazis insisted on using Cyclon-B and making the Jews do the St. Vitus Dance instead of killing six million undesirables nicely. That does it! I’m going back in my time machine and revoking all of Triblinka’s carefully prepared government paperwork.
You can’t license people who act uncivilized. It leads to just the sort of unpleasantness we got at Gosnell’s clinic in Filthadelphia. If you want America to get rid of 50 million unborn children since Roe v. Wade, you have to do it quietly and utter all the proper euphemisms.
Remember, this isn't some fringe site. This is the one of the most popular "conservative" blog on the Internets.
It's an article of faith on the right that the gubmint has absolutely no right to regulate firearms, but can and should invasively and aggressively regulate a woman's health care decisions. And the stupid is awfully powerful in Texas.
The NRSC is standing by its candidate in Indiana, Richard Mourdock, after the Senate hopeful said that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something God intended to happen,” while Mitt Romney and other Republicans are distancing themselves from the Hoosier.
“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans — including even Joe Donnelly — believe that life is a gift from God,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. “To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous. In fact, rather than condemning him for his position, as some in his party have when it’s come to Republicans, I commend Congressman Donnelly for his support of life.”
Good for him.
I have to say, I find it incredibly cowardly for Romney to attack pro-lifers like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock for actually saying what they -- and the clear majority of Republicans -- believe. Romney and other Republicans in moderate drag have been trying to have it both aways on abortion for three decades. They want to get credit for being "pro-life" without ever having to take a hard legal position on Roe, or without giving any detailed philosophical and moral discussion of abortion beyond meaningless bromides like "I believe life begins at conception." The whole "even in the cases of rape and incest" line is a distraction and a flimsy pose designed to make anti-choice Republicans appear "moderate."
But there's nothing at all "moderate" about overturning Roe: you either think abortion should be legal in this country, or you don't. It's already quite heavily regulated.
Anyway, someone should ask Romney to explain exactly how his position on abortion is different than John Cornyn and the NRSC's. Specifics, please.
Now, almost everyone who doesn't regularly sniff glue wouldn't equate a medical procedure with taking a flight to Daytona. But the irony of a right-wing authoritarian like Carpenter -- who cheered on all of the domestic spying, indefinite detention and torture of the Bush administration -- complaining about invasive security measure, is indeed thick.
It must be really hard to be an anti-choice wingnut and not reach for absurd non-sequiturs like this.
Mitt Romney today said no abortion legislation is part of his agenda, but he would prohibit federally-funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries.
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the GOP presidential candidate told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board during a meeting today before his campaign rally at a Van Meter farm.
In a column which she complains about how mean and partisan and "extremist" Democrats have been this week, Nooners actually wrote this.
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one.
Wow. Totally speechless.
And this is super classy.
What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
The spittle-inducing rage that Sanda Fluke inspires in wingnuts is just remarkable. (And for the millionth time, regulating insurance plans that people pay for out of their own pockets isn't the same thing as "making other people pay" for their birth-control pills. Geez.)
Either she a liar or "pro-lifers" have absolutely no reason to vote for Mitt Romney. Which is it?
Mitt Romney’s eldest sister, who has backed prominent Democrats for office and is in Tampa showing support for her brother, had some reassuring words Wednesday for women concerned about the Republican Party’s hard line on abortion.
Mitt Romney would never make abortions illegal as president, Jane Romney said when National Journal asked her about the subject after a “Women for Mitt” event. "He’s not going to be touching any of that,” she said. “It’s not his focus.”
Democratic warnings that abortion rights are under threat are an ungrounded fear tactic, Jane Romney said. “That’s what women are afraid of, but that’s conjured,” she said. “Personally, I don’t think abortion should be used as a football in the political arena.”
Yeah, Democrats think so too, Jane, which is why our position is that it should be left to the woman and her doctor. Republicans have been arguing the opposite for 40 years and exploiting the issue at the polls every 2.
...as Jane Romney put it, “Mitt’s much more in the middle” when it comes to abortion.
When Republicans really screw the pooch and do something that hurts them with the electorate — and that happens a lot — they usually do one of two things: 1) blame the "media" or; 2) blame Democrats. And Wednesday night on Hardball, a Republican Congresswoman from Washington state picked option "2."
MATTHEWS: Let`s hear right now -- we have a couple points here. Congresswoman, what do you make of -- in Virginia -- by the way, Congresswoman, what do you make of the charge that Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, is making in her new fund-raising letter that there is, in fact, a war on women being waged by the Republicans?
RODGERS: The reality is, in 2010, the Republicans won the women`s vote. And the Democrats know that in order to win the presidency, in order to win the seats in the House and the Senate, that they have to scare women, that they have to win the women`s vote.
Oh wait — Republicans did all that. But Rodgers would have none of it.
RODGERS: The reality is, the Republicans won the women`s vote in 2010 and the Democrats know they have to win the women`s vote and that they are scared. These are scare tactics to scare women. And they have — they have often used the abortion...
MATTHEWS: Whose tactics are they? I`m just asking you, whose tactics are they? You say they`re Democratic tactics.
How did Democrats get Republicans legislators to make these proposals? How tricky are they, these Democrats? They get the Virginia legislature to bring up all this stuff on abortion. They get Santorum to talk up contraception. These Democrats are ventriloquists? How do they get the Republicans to say all this stuff? They are really masterful, I would say. I know I`m being sarcastic. But you know the evidence is a lot of right-wing social activists in your party are giving the Democrats catnip here, right? You`re admitting that.
MCMORRIS RODGERS: There are a lot of left-wing social activists that are also pushing their agenda in various legislators — legislatures, and here in Congress, the same thing.
The Party of Personal Responsibility That Blames Everyone Else For Their Problems strikes again. Angry Black Lady has a brilliant but NSFW takedown here.
"Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a "surgical procedure." If it's not a life it shouldn't matter, if it doesn't harm a woman then she shouldn't care, and don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.
Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain - I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living - I will be voting YES."
But the War on Women is just an invention of the Democrats and the media to make conservatives look bad.
Proud should keep it up. With talk like this, she'll wind up with the Veep slot.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation has absolutely no credibility left. On Thursday, this is what Nancy Brinker, Komen's CEO, told Andrea Mitchell.
BRINKER: In 2010, we set about creating excellence in our grants, not just in our community grants, but in our science grants, putting metrics, outcomes and measures to them. [...] Part of that includes taking these grants into communities and being excellent grant givers. Many of the grants we were doing with Planned Parenthood do not meet new standards of criteria for how we can measure our results and effectiveness in communities.
She went on to emphasize that this was the key reason the funding had been withdrawn -- and played down the fact that the GOP House was currently investigating Planned Parenthood.
Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.
Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.
So, what happened to those "measures" and "metrics" and "outcomes" Brinker was babbling about on Thursday?
Following a new statement Komen for the Cure released making many observers believe the breast cancer charity reversed position on whether it would fund grants to Planned Parenthood, one Komen board member says it hasn’t caved.
Komen board member John Raffaelli talked with the Washington Post after the statement was released and said the new announcement doesn’t necessarily mean there is any reversal until and unless Planned Parenthood receives additional funding beyond what was already planned before Komen’s December decision.
Based on Komen's actions this week, does anyone have any confidence that they'll do the right thing now?