DEMOCRATS, THE PARTY OF INFANTICIDE

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says right in its name that the bill would cover children who survive abortion and are then in need of medical care. Keep that in mind, they SURVIVE abortion and are ALIVE.

So what why did Democrats say they were against it?

Senator Tina Smith (D., Minn.) said that the bill “puts Congress in the middle of the important medical decisions that patients and doctors should make together without political interference.” Other than whether to kill a child that is alive it doesn’t do this at all.

Smith also said “Physicians and patients making decisions together based on patients’ individual needs.” How is helping a child no longer in the womb that has survived the abortion process any longer the individual need of the patient?

Senator Mazie Hirono (D) of Hawaii said it represents the idea that “the moral judgment of right-wing politicians in Washington, D.C., should supersede a medical professional’s judgment and a woman’s decision.” Only if the decision in question is whether or not to kill a child that has been born and is no longer the woman’s concern.

Hirono also said “Conservative politicians should not be telling doctors how they should care for their patients. Instead, women, in consultation with their families and doctors, are in the best position to determine their best course of care.” But the law isn’t talking about the patient in the sense of the woman getting an abortion, it’s not about caring for them. Unless Hirono is saying politicians should not be telling doctors how they should care for a newborn baby that survived an abortion.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said “The bill is solely meant to intimidate doctors and restrict patients’ access to care and has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with protecting children.” The bill does nothing to restrict patients’ access to care and does protect a child, the one who was born and then survived abortion.

Tammy Duckworth (D) of Illinois labeled the bill an effort to “bully doctors out of giving reproductive care.” How does helping a child that is still alive after surviving an abortion bullying doctors out of providing reproductive care?

Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) said the legislation “would interfere with the doctor–patient relationship and impose new obstacles to a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.” How does helping a child that is still alive after surviving an abortion impose new obstacles to making decisions about a woman’s reproductive health? It’s no longer inside of her.

The bill has nothing to do with women’s reproductive rights, access to abortion, access to healthcare, outlawing doctors who provide abortions or imposing right wing moral judgements on anyone. What it does is require that these nearly aborted newborns be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive. It also doesn’t require the mother to care for the child

What the vote against this bill shows is that the Democrats feel that the rights of women who want abortions are more important that the lives of children WHO ARE BORN ALIVE. The bill is not about unborn children but those who SURVIVE ABORTION. We’re not talking, as they like to say, a mass of cells any longer but a fully formed, fully functional child. And they voted that this wasn’t worth saving.

The Democrats are now being accused of infanticide and this is exactly what the no vote on this bill amounts to. By trying to paint the picture that this involves what takes place before that birth shows that they will say anything to promote the death of children, even those that survive an abortion.

f it sounds like I’m angry, I am. I cannot fathom how anyone, in particular and entire political party, could condone the killing of innocent children and try to disguise it as caring about women’s rights. Where are they when it comes to the rights of that child, one already born and there trying to fight for its very existence?

How is it that the same party who is telling us how heartless it is to have a child separated from its mother for several days after coming across the border illegally thinks that killing a child that has survived an abortion is wrong? You have to wonder if children are really their concern at all.

A DEMAND TO ABORT

Child at 38 weeks.

 

The more I think about this the more it troubles me. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a leading member of the Democrat Party, this week said that he refused to sign the state budget for the upcoming year until lawmakers approve a bill that would make it legal to have an abortion for any reason up until birth. Hillary Clinton stood beside him at the event where he made a pro-abortion speech.

So here is what the bill means. At present you have to be a licensed physician to perform an abortion and only up to 24 weeks or 6 months (still too long in my eyes). With this bill any licensed health care provider acting in "good faith" would be able to perform an abortion at any time up until birth.

The bill has been stalled in congress in New York State since it was introduced in 2007 by Republicans but Democrats now have a majority. Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D) who introduced the bill in 2007 said "This is only the beginning of the protections that we will have for our women, for our environment, criminal-justice reform, education — the list goes on. But in January, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we will make our statement, we will make our mark."

At the event Clinton said she was a "lifelong champion of these rights." She added "New York led the rest of the country even before Roe v. Wade in making abortion legal. But the struggle for women's equality is not something simply to be read about in the pages of your history books. It continues to be the fight of our lifetime." This woman wanted to be our President, to represent everyone not just an individual group, and here she is saying that killing an unborn child at 8 or 9 months is a right that she has championed for her entire life. She thinks it is a woman’s right and has no concern for a child. And while I’m not in favor of abortion keep in mind we’re not talking first trimester here, we’re talking making it legal up to the day before you’re supposed to give birth. 

Even Kelly Brunacini, a member of the Feminists Choosing Life of New York board of directors and a Democrat is concerned about this. She said in an op-ed "The vast majority of Americans, including in New York, oppose these late-term abortions. As a New Yorker, Democrat and feminist, I can't help but wonder what history will say about a people who allowed the legalized killing of fully formed human beings for the sake of exerting political dominance.” I wonder the same thing. What type of society are we where we have no problem with a fully formed child being killed and calling it an abortion rather than murder?

At 8-9 months we’re not talking about someone who was raped or who no one knew it was a case of incest, the most common talking points used initially by pro-abortion groups. Ignoring the fact that those types of cases are rare, this is now about changing your mind. If you’ve ever felt a child move in the womb, how could you not think of this as being a living individual? And now to say you have the “right” to kill this individual because of “equality”?

I’ve talked before about stair steps, how disaffected groups push for one small item only to push for another and another and another, working their way up steps to reach and ultimate goal. Abortion began with rape and incest victims. Then it became the right of someone to abort early on. Then it was a battle to get government funding to have an abortion. The terms changed with each battle with the length of months a woman could have an abortion extending each time. Now we’re faced with up to birth. And if you disagree it’s not that you are thinking of the welfare of the child or that you respect the sanctity of life, you’re depicted as trying to deny a woman “healthcare” or her rights to equality. But the steps never end. 

When does it go beyond that? When do we allow a woman to abort her child once it’s out of the womb? Perhaps infanticide is nest, allowing women plagues by postpartum depression to kill their own children for the “sake of the mother’s mental health”. Will that then extend to the elderly? Will an elderly parent who places an economic burden on their children or the Medicare system be considered a problem that needs dealt with by denying them medical attention or medication? Maybe an “abortion” of said parent would take care of things. 

How cheap life must be to those who feel that killing a child at 8-9 months is no problem but a “right” for the mother.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOCK: R.I.P. APU

A recent survey said that 80% of Americans are sick and tired of political correctness. Among the highest percentages of the groups were black Americans, Native Americans and Hispanic Americans. And yet in spite of that we’re still cow towing to the small, vocal, whiners who feel the need to force their opinions on the rest of us. Suddenly after decades man size Kleenex is a gender issue. In spite of the fact that of the 193 nations in the world the number of countries where the average woman is taller than the average man is zero. The ones have an average female weight greater than the average male weight? Zero.

Gingerbread men have been called that for as long as they’ve been made. But someone felt it was inappropriate and now they have to be called Gingerbread people. Did anyone notice they have no genitalia so what difference does it make?

Snow White is saved from eternal sleep by Prince Charming with a kiss. But we have to be offended because, in spite of the fact that she was unconscious until kissed, she didn’t give him consent to kiss her. Really? A tender, loving moment with zero groping, nudity, sex or anything of the sort is offensive?

Megyn Kelly was just fired over making controversial statements. What did she say? While discussing costumes for Halloween she said “This year, the costume police are cracking down like never before…Isn’t the whole purpose of Halloween to dress up and pretend you are something other than yourself?...You do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface for Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween…Back when I was a kid, that was okay as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.” She then noted that REAL HOUSEWIVES star Luan de Lesseps dressed up as Diana Ross for Halloween including making her skin look darker saying I” thought, like, Who doesn’t love Diana Ross? She wants to look like Diana Ross for one day; I don’t know how that got racist on Halloween…It’s not like she’s walking around [wearing blackface] in general.” Kelly was forced to make an apology the next day and then fired after that. Amazingly enough comedians/TV hosts Sarah Silverman, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmie Kimmel have all done skits where they actually wore blackface and none of them were chastised or criticized for doing so.

Want to wear hoop earrings ladies? Sorry, Pitzer College has decided that doing so was cultural appropriation. So are certain kinds of eyebrows so watch it. Other stupid items to be found on college campuses include students asking to be excused from an exam because they didn’t have enough privilege to be able to handle it emotionally, schools instructing professors to take into account the “emotional commitment” that some students had made to protesting on campus instead of doing work and grade them on a curve accordingly, the size of chairs was considered a “microagression” to overweight students, Clemson University diversity training taught participants that it was offensive to expect people to be on time because “time may be considered fluid” in some cultures, math teachers were instructed to teach their students how math has been historically used to oppress people and students at a conference in England for The National Union of Students were told to avoid clapping or cheering during speeches to avoid making deaf people feel excluded (doesn’t that offend the blind people?).

The latest victim of political correctness? Apu, the Indian shop owner on THE SIMPSONS (keep in mind it’s a cartoon) will be taken off of the series because some people find him to be a stereotype. Ignore the fact that he’s smarter than Homer Simpson, knows more American history than Homer Simpson, is a hard working member of society and owns his own store. He has an accent therefore he must be offensive! Ignore the fact that we have a Scotsman with an accent, an alcoholic, a donut eating cop, a female horror host named Booberella, a superhero named Duffman who loves beer, a stoner driving the school bus, a children’s show sidekick who’s a murderer and more. By all means, let’s oust the positive character because someone whines he’s offensive.

But to top off the stupidity of political correctness there is this item. In October 2015, the University of Milwaukee-Wisconsin released its annual list of banned, offensive words. Included among them was the phrase “politically correct.” The campus deemed the phrase a “microagression” that might hurt student feelings and suggested using “sensitive” instead. Yes being politically correct is now politically incorrect. They were so offended by the idea of being politically correct that they felt the need to make a politically correct version of politically correct. Huh?

How about we all just stop being offended by every little thing out there? Sure, there are times when people step over the line but they are few and far between. And the fact of the matter is when someone does step over the line most people tell them so. But to cow tow to every single thing in the world that someone, somewhere might find offensive? The list is never ending.

So the politically correct police have won another round. On the air beginning December 17, 1989 and after 30 seasons the character of Apu was deemed offensive by some whiner. All these years with no one being offended, hurt or damaged by a cartoon character and suddenly he was deemed offensive. I’m waiting apprehensively for the bowlegged to be offended by Yosemite Sam, by those with speech impediments to be offended by Daffy Duck, Porky Pig and Sylvester the cat, by anti-NRA folks to take on Elmer Fudd for hunting all the time, by the sight impaired to be offended by Popeye constantly squinting, by bulimics and anorexics to be offended by the sight of Olive Oyl, by those who warn of obesity upset with Wimpy and the number of hamburgers he eats, by someone who will think “scooby snacks” is code for drugs or by Donald Duck for not wearing any pants.

R.I.P. Apu, you were a good character. Too bad some people just thought of you as a negative stereotype as opposed to the positive one you were.

CHUCK TODD, WHINER IN CHEIF

If anyone is looking for some fresh manure you can find it in an article in THE ATLANTIC. MEET THE PRESS host Chuck Todd just wrote a piece that’s full of it.

For years the press has lost their objectivity and those viewing began stop watching. His reason? It’s that pesky Fox News and their founder Roger Ailes. After a week of hearing how people shouldn’t talk ill of the dead or how we should be more civil it comes as no surprise that Todd focuses his frustrations this way.

Throughout the article he makes observations and accusations against Fox News consistently ignoring the fact that every item he claims is being done by every left leaning news group, including his own. It’s not new and it’s been going on for decades even before Fox began airing. I’ve noticed it but even members of the press have seen it as well. In the first paragraph alone Todd cites things he was stunned by in a bad way. Amazingly enough they all relate to Republicans.

He claims there is a “campaign to destroy the legitimacy of the American news media.” I’m sitting here and thinking how one single news channel can accomplish this. One. Single. Channel. One channel up against ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Free Speech TV, Fusion, Vice, Bloomberg Television and even ESPN has weighed in over the past few years promoting liberal ideas. Not to mention The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, The Washington Post and the Miami Herald. An article at the business insider website shows 25 liberal news sources and only 6 conservative. Among those 6 they include Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity Fox News, Drudge Report and Breitbart. 3 radio hosts, 2 online sites and 1 network. Against 25 that include every major network. What does it say that 1 news network can do that much damage to the credibility of those 25?

He makes the claim that some conservative personalities “have attained wealth and power by exploiting the fears of older white people.” Where did they learn this from? Haven’t the press always stoked fear among people? If you don’t think so look at the coverage given to similar stories. An unarmed black man is shot and we hear about it for days. The exact same thing happens to a white man and not a word from the networks. Both are terrible tragedies. One is used to stoke fears that statistics prove wrong. By the way, Todd has a net worth of $2 million.

He complains that “Ailes signaled that Fox News would offer an alternative voice”. That sentence alone defeats his argument. Why would there need to be an alternative unless all other voices were in lockstep?

He even goes back to blame the loss of Dukakis on Fox News. Really? Did you not notice how terrible a candidate he was?

In a line talking about complaints that coverage of Trump should be balanced with stories about Hillary he claims “one person is the leader of the free world, and the other is a retiree living in the suburbs of New York City.” I actually had to laugh out loud at that one. A little old retiree in the suburbs? Really? Has he not added up the amount of time she spent on TV last year? Has he not noticed her fund raising goals? I’ve seen her in more locations around this country and the world since she lost the election and have yet to see a picture of her in the suburbs of NYC. And almost all of those times were on the mainstream media outlets. I would expect the acting President to be in the news all the time but not the person who lost. Twice.

I’m flabbergasted when I read “Because journalists report on new and controversial ideas all the time, it’s not uncommon for us to be accused of championing an idea—think of same-sex marriage—that some members of our audience find objectionable. Letting folks know that a movement is afoot, and documenting its successes and failures, is our job.” Well that’s been the whole problem. They do champion ideas. That’s not reporting facts, that’s advocating for ideas, promoting them and manipulating stories to make it seem like they are a vast movement. I noted an example of that earlier.

“Reporters, I fully acknowledge, bring their own biases to their work.” Duh. That’s been the whole point. And the problem is that while he acknowledges this he condemns Fox for doing so at the same time. So does that mean it’s okay to have a bias as long as it one sided?

He notes that “we helped accelerate the campaign to delegitimize the American press corps. From unforced errors by high-profile anchors to the biggest missed news story of the 21st century—the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—we have handed critics some lethal ammunition” but that they then went back and corrected their mistakes. Well…so has Fox.

He says “The idea that our work will speak for itself is hopelessly naïve” and that it will be manipulated by those who disagree. Well not if your reporting is consistently accurate and presents the news from more than a single unified viewpoint. And if you don’t think there is a single unified viewpoint consider that a call to write editorials bashing Trump on August 22^nd was announced by those newspapers.

“Every day, we need to do our job, check our facts, strive to be transparent, and say what we’re seeing.” I agree 100% and support this statement he makes. How about just report the facts. Don’t weigh in, don’t turn a news story into commentary, don’t manipulate the heartstrings with the way you write the story, don’t tell part of the story while ignoring the rest. Want an example? Separating children from their mothers at the border…without mentioning it happened before Trump was elected…or that a large number were not with parents but with human smugglers.

He complains that “Fox seems more comfortable than ever pushing the limits of responsible behavior by a supposed news organization. It recently allowed a sitting state attorney general to co-host a show for three days. The network effectively gave a GOP candidate for Florida governor nearly unfettered access to its airwaves during his primary campaign” ignoring the fact that left leaning candidates or politicians can appear on a news network like MSNBC on a nightly basis for weeks at a time.

Consider Rep. Adam Schiff.  From January 23, 2017 until February 25, 2018, Rep. Schiff, the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, participated in a whopping 227 television interviews, clocking a cumulative total of 26 hours, 4 minutes, and 10 seconds on television. This included his participating in 111 interviews with MSNBC for a total time of 12 hours, 5 minutes, and 50 seconds and 87 interviews with CNN for a total time of 10 hours, 58 minutes, and 50 seconds. This amounted to more time than he spoke on the floor of the house which amounted to 10 times for a total of 36 minutes, and 29 seconds. Or the amount of time he participated in House Intelligence Committee open hearings on Russia interference in the 2016 election, a grand total of only 13 hours and 18 minutes.

Near the end he says “I’m not advocating for a more activist press in the political sense, but for a more aggressive one.” Really? A NPR story noted a Pew study that found “Fully two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative by that definition — more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies.” A March 2018 story in The Washington Times reported that a Media Research Center study found that at the big three networks (ABC, CBS and Todd’s own NBC) stories about President Trump “remains 91 percent negative”. Be more aggressive? Really?

One other thing to note about Todd’s whine. Like the Democrats he calls out for confrontation. He writes that his colleagues should "start fighting back" against Fox News. Someone took him for his word today and did exactly what he called for. A man drove his truck into the studios of Dallas Fox affiliate KDFW.

It seems to be a running thing with the left these days. Candidate Obama told people that they should “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Maxine Waters called for supporters to confront members of the Trump administration. Tim Kaine who said “…fight in the streets”. Kathy Griffin who held up a decapitated head of Donald Trump. Snoop Dogg having a video where he shoots President Trump. Donny Deutsch who said people need to start taking to the streets. Actor Davis Harbour who said “we will punch some people in the face.” Who did a Shakespeare’s play about Caesar with Trump being stabbed to death. Don’t believe me? Watch. And just add Chuck Todd’s misguided plea to the list.

And if you’d like to read Todd’s article? Here is a link. See what you think.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/its-time-for-the-press-to-stop-complainingand-to-start-fighting-back/569224/