Category Archives: Abortion

‘Comedians’ Curse and Spit at Anti-Abortion Advocates :: Right & Free

 

The “progressives” among us who fervently argue for abortion do not argue calmly or rationally when they are losing. As state legislators in Austin debated the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” outlawing abortions after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected at six weeks, Planned Parenthood boss Alexis McGill Johnson accused the bill’s backers of cruelty.

“The cruelty is the point,” she proclaimed, “and we will not let it stand.”

So the abortion conglomerate that dismembers and murders over 300,000 unborn babies for money every year is accusing someone else of engaging in cruelty. It’s cruelty to object to their cruelty.

The abortion industry can always count on TV entertainers to rally to their side with all the anger and profanity they can muster. Our so-called comedians erupted in foam-flecked attacks on the conservative legislators of Texas after the Supreme Court declined to overturn this law.

On NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” the host bitterly complained anti-abortion advocates don’t have a majority in the Court and “they don’t give a s—- because they’re there for life. I mean, if that’s how our government is going to work, then why not just have a f—-ing monarchy?”

That wasn’t the only obscene outburst on that program. Meyers also introduced a “Minute of Fury” commentary from Amber Ruffin in which she “satirically” demanded federally funded pedicures if the government owned her body. She lectured, “So don’t take charge of the biggest decision I’ll ever make in my whole life when you can’t even get me a goddamn pedicure.”

On TBS, “Full Frontal” host and feminist Samantha Bee shook her fists at the Supreme Court. “If you’re taking away our reproductive rights, at least own that you’re gutless monsters.” She called the Supreme Court Republicans an “anti-pussy posse.” The cultural elite gravitate seamlessly from being “sex positive” to negating pregnancies. Bee wants America to be just like her native Canada, where you can get an abortion at any moment over nine months and government will pay for it, too.

On HBO’s “Last Week Tonight,” British import John Oliver not only raged at the American legislators and judges but at his own employers at AT&T. The left is so domineering it now insists every corporation must threaten politicians who oppose abortion. Every company is supposed to wage cultural war, and if the casualties are all under the age of birth, then so be it.

Oliver told his audience that he demanded answers from the people who pay him an estimated $8 million a year. They said they haven’t taken a public position on abortion. How dare they! “Listen, not taking a stance on this issue right now is taking a stance,” Oliver lamented. “And both-siding abortion isn’t really the PR slam dunk that they seem to think it is. Although it is certainly on brand for them. AT&T clearly likes their public statements the same way that they like their cell signal: Hilariously f—-ing weak.”

Moments like these make you wonder why on Earth the liberals at the Peabody Awards gave Oliver’s show a “rare second” award “for crafting a form that pushes both comedy and journalism in new, fresh, and publicly important directions.”

This is not new or fresh. This is not comedy. This is not journalism. It’s just lobbying. It’s in-your-face liberalism, which the Peabody folks have applauded repetitively as a “publicly important direction.” It’s so “publicly important” that you’re not allowed to be neutral about it. The babies have to be sacrificed on the altar of “anti-cruelty.”

https://rightandfree.com/news/2021/09/14/comedians-curse-and-spit-at-anti-abortion-advocates?utm_campaign=IC&utm_source=IC-20210917&utm_medium=email

Share

Every life important?

5/9/20 WSJ  By Rick Santorum

Battle lines are being drawn over when and how to reopen the economy. These are hard decisions—the kind politicians prefer to avoid—because they’re both uncertain and consequential. Yet you can tell people’s true character in a crisis—what is most important, what they’re willing to fight for.
Generally the left is on the side of continuing the shutdowns, while the right favors opening up. The left’s main concern is protecting life: Economic activity must give way for the sake of the most vulnerable. The right, while initially compliant, is now in revolt over infringements on personal liberty and the dire economic impact of shutdowns.

Both sides deserve credit for taking a consequential stand on the principled debate between life and liberty. I am especially grateful to Democratic politicians who put the lives of the most vulnerable ahead of the liberty of young, healthy people. I’m also grateful to President Trump and Republicans for initially joining Democrats in that position. Whatever you think of these policies, these officials showed character by standing up for the importance of life—not just any life, but the lives of the old, the sick and often the forgotten. This was a great moment for a society that doesn’t agree in large majorities about much of anything.

As the weather warms, the caseload has fallen in the epicenter of New York, and infections haven’t exploded in less densely populated areas, I agree with my conservative friends that we should return to work. We believe in freedom, but with responsibility—to care for yourself, your family and the vulnerable. As Americans get back to work, they will have
The ‘elective’ procedure blue-state politicians wouldn’t halt for the coronavirus pandemic.

to behave differently to avoid another outbreak of this deadly virus. More will work from home, school from home, change career paths, eat out less, embrace faith and be more engaged with friends, family and neighbors.

We all now understand how little and vulnerable we are. We recognize that life is fragile and not to be taken for granted. When push came to shove we all prized life above the economic freedom to pursue our dreams—and even to preserve our health. Politicians on the left and right shut down surgery centers, cancer-treatment centers and other places that used personal protective equipment, because it was needed on the Covid frontlines and such procedures were considered elective or nonessential.

There was one exception to the closure of these types of medical facilities in states run by Democratic governors. These facilities for 50 years have put economic freedom (and on rare occasions health) over the life of the most helpless, most vulnerable among us. How can governors insist on closing life-saving cancer centers as nonessential while keeping open abortion clinics, whose sole purpose is to end life? How can governors insist on saving every life possible, no matter the hardship to working families in their states, while keeping open facilities so people don’t have to live with the responsibility of raising new life?
In this moment of crisis, our character is laid bare, for better and for worse.

Mr. Santorum served as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, 1995-2007.

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Share

The subject is Infanticide

Agree; let’s get the subject matter correct.

======

WSJ 3/11/2019

‘Safe, legal and rare.”

The phrase, which President Clinton coined during his 1996 re-election campaign, was meant to make abortion sound reasonable and even compassionate. It implied that abortion is inherently regrettable, and that legality and safety go hand in hand.

A generation later, the party of “safe, legal and rare” has been captured by the loud voices and deep pockets of an extremist abortion industry that treats abortion as a moral good. Major Democratic politicians are even unwilling to protect the lives of babies who survive attempted abortions.

There are many complicated debates to be had about abortion, and as unapologetic pro-lifers we want to have those conversations based on compassion and science. But infanticide isn’t complicated. The current debate is about whether or not it’s OK to deprive newborns of appropriate medical care.

The abortion industry’s shift has been assisted by most mainstream media outlets, which have framed the issue with cheap euphemisms and a prefabricated narrative. They describe all pro-life policies, even ones backed by a majority of Americans, as “controversial.” But when pro-abortion politicians advance extreme policies, the headlines focus on pro-life “backlash.”

In reality, the abortion industry is playing offense, not defense. The extraordinary abortion law passed recently in New York is the most glaring example. Gov. Andrew Cuomo lit One World Trade Center pink to celebrate late-term abortion and the removal of protections for babies born alive during botched abortions. Meanwhile in Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam endorsed infanticide outright, suggesting that a baby born during a botched abortion ought to be “made comfortable,” but then possibly left to die on the table.

These governors weren’t alone. Last month 44 Democratic senators voted to reject the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The bill would have required health-care providers to give babies who survive abortions the same care they would give to any other baby at the same gestational age. The bill is necessary because current federal law neither affirmatively requires that these babies receive care nor criminalizes withholding care from them.

It shouldn’t be controversial. It shouldn’t be partisan. Three Democratic senators—Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, Alabama’s Doug Jones and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin—read the bill and agreed. Yet under enormous pressure from an abortion industry that spends tens of millions in campaign contributions, Senate Democrats—including six seeking the presidency in 2020—filibustered the bill.

Most Americans don’t share these Democrats’ disregard for newborn life. A recent poll found that a majority of Americans oppose withholding medical care from a viable infant, including 77% who consider themselves pro-choice. If there is ever an opportunity to find common ground, surely this is it.

For more than 200 years, each generation of Americans has committed to protecting the dignity of more and more human beings. Following this tradition, our country now must condemn the lie that some newborn lives are worth less than others. Fundamental American principles demand that we protect babies from cruel mistreatment.

This debate is about infanticide. Planned Parenthood is defending that crime. Many in the national media are overlooking it. Democratic politicians are hiding from it. But the American people are repulsed by it. The recent vote was a missed opportunity to protect the most vulnerable among us. But it will not be the last.

Ms. McCain is a co-host of “The View.” Mr. Sasse, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.

Share

Targeting Down Syndrome

===
WSJ – 5/25/2017 By Sohrab Ahmari

Paris

You can learn a lot about a society by paying attention to what it censors. The Soviet Union went to great lengths to block the truth about freedom and prosperity in the West. Today China’s ruling Communists suppress historical memory of their crimes, above all the Tiananmen Square massacre, while the censors in my native Iran are obsessed with women’s bodies.

Then there’s France, where the government has proscribed a publicservice commercial that shows children with Down syndrome describing the joy of growing up with an extra pair of chromosomes. The decision has triggered a free-speech battle royal that may soon reach Europe’s highest rights court.

The 2014 ad, “Dear Future Mom,” addresses a pregnant woman who has just discovered her baby has Down syndrome. “Dear future mom,” says one child. “Don’t be afraid,” says another. “Your child will be able to do many things.” “He’ll be able to hug you.” “He’ll be able to run toward you.” And so on.

Several European Down syndrome associations came together to sponsor the ad. These included France’s Jérôme Lejeune Foundation, named after the geneticist who discovered the link between chromosomal abnormalities and conditions like Down syndrome, and who went on to campaign against prenatal diagnosis and abortion of babies with Down syndrome.

“In France the rate of detected DS pregnancies that result in abortion is 96%,” the foundation’s president, Jean-Marie Le Méné, tells me in an interview. He fears that the advent of new tests that can detect the syndrome earlier and with greater precision will push that rate to 100%— the eradication of an entire category of human beings.

Hence the “Dear Future Mom” ad. When it was released in March 2014, for World Down Syndrome Day, the ad broke records for social-media “shares” in a 24-hour period. Matteo Renzi, Italy’s prime minister at the time, was one of the millions of users who shared it.

In France three TV networks agreed to carry it as a public service. The feedback was glowing—until that summer, when the government’s High Audiovisual Council, or CSA, issued a pair of regulatory bulletins interdicting the ad. The regulator said it was reacting to audience complaints.

It wasn’t until after the foundation retained legal counsel, in December 2014, that the nature of the audience complaints became clear. There were only two.

The first objected to the foundation’s antiabortion position generally rather than the ad itself. The other came from a woman who had terminated a pregnancy after receiving a Down syndrome diagnosis. She still mourned that child every day, she wrote. Using the familiar lexicon of contemporary censorship, she added that she found watching the ad “violent.”

The foundation appealed, and the case eventually came before the Council of State, France’s highest administrative court. The council in November affirmed the ban, holding that the ad could “disturb the conscience” of women who had had abortions after a Down syndrome diagnosis.

A spokeswoman for the CSA wouldn’t comment on the record. But the regulator insists it was applying French laws that prohibit political messages during TV commercial time. “Dear Future Mom,” the CSA says, didn’t rise to “general interest” because it presented one side of a political debate.

This is a pretext. In its initial notice, published June 25, 2014, the CSA conceded that the ad “shows a positive image of the life of young people with Down syndrome and encourages society to work in favor of their integration and fulfillment”—a message that is squarely in the public interest and apolitical.

Which leaves only the viewer’s complaint of being traumatized. If subjective feelings suffice, any advocacy speech could be restricted—and unpopular minorities like people with Down syndrome are most likely to be silenced.

For the foundation, the claim that the ad evokes feelings of guilt only attests to its moral truth. Says spokeswoman Stéphanie Billot: “When you show a video of DS kids who say, ‘Well, I won’t be normal, but I will still be able to love you,’ the guilt becomes so unbearable that society rejects it. It’s a common, unconscious guilt for all who said nothing about the effort to systematically eliminate DS.” Guilt can be salutary.

The foundation this month lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, asserting freespeech violations as well as genetic discrimination. It helps that France is an outlier. The ad has aired in Britain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Spain and the U.S., among others. No other government took similar action against it.

The European court accepts fewer than 1 in 10 petitions, and the foundation will have to prove harm, since the ad did air as intended in 2014. That won’t be difficult, however, since the CSA says the purpose of the interdiction notice was to discourage networks from airing similar content. Several French broadcasters declined to run “Dear Future Mom” this year, citing a shortage of advertising time.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial writer in London.

Share