Tag Archives: contraception

The “Republicans are against birth control” meme is as choreographed as any ballet

And the Democrats and the mainstream media are the choreographers. It is a pathetic ploy to shift attention from the disastrous state of the economy. Should we worry about our insanely high debt levels or whether people with jobs have to pay $10 per month for birth control?

They realize that people on average, and especially the youth, are increasingly pro-life but still want people to have access to birth control. You might be thinking, “So what? Who opposes access to birth control?” Even the Catholics aren’t trying to make it illegal.

Do we oppose funding of Planned Parenthood? Of course! But not because they give away condoms. We do it because they are the largest destroyer of innocent but unwanted human beings in the country, they hide statutory rape and sex trafficking, they aggressively promote the sexualization of children and much, much more.

But that doesn’t mean we want there to be less access to birth control. If PP quit receiving tax funding then Liberals would be welcome to give to them directly, just as they are today. Hey, for $480 you can donate to a Kenyan charity that will give food, clothes and education to four children for a year or you can help PP give a free abortion to kill a child here. Your choice!

Read this and the first link above. Note how people like Stephanopoulos seem to be early adopters of the weird script they’ve been given. Don’t be fooled by the ploy by the Left, and be sure to point out these facts to others. The Leftists won’t be persuaded, but that doesn’t matter. They are voting for Obama no matter what. It is all about the independents.

I wrote last week about a theory put forth by Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that abortion proponents were shifting strategies to focus on contraceptives rather than abortion, the reason being their own polls show abortion is no longer a winning issue with young people and women, but contraception is.

This week Republican strategist Dick Morris pitched the same theory onHannity, adding some corroboration:
Morris:Obama did not make a mistake in this mandate. It’s a deliberately calculated move on his part. The Democrats realize that abortion is no longer a winner for them. It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life, now it’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice possibly because of the publicity of the anti-abortion people, possibly because of the aging of the population. But the point is that it’s a loser issue.

So what they’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception. So the first piece of evidence was after Santorum won Iowa, the first controversy was, “Do you think states should have the right to ban contraception?” Where did that come from?

Morris: Then you remember that ABC debate with that paid Democratic hitmanGeorge Stephanopoulos went after Romney trying to… pin him down on, on contraception? And Romney kept saying, “George, nobody wants to make contraception.” “No, but do they have the theoretical power to do it?” Remember, it was five minutes, people were laughing at him, booing him. Well that…

Hannity:You think he was doing this under direct orders?

Morris:Under orders. And I think, and now he comes out with this thing on contraception. They want to create the idea, and it’s no coincidence, that he came out with it after Minnesota and Colorado which was Santorum’s victories. They want to create the impression that the Republicans will ban contraception, which is totally insane, but they’re floating it out and they’re bringing it out there. And this move on Obama’s part was part of injecting that issue.

The good news about this is that it shows how desperate they are.

The 4th most despicable thing Planned Parenthood does is really despicable

Planned Parenthood has quite a track record.  Despite the irrefutable evidence for the following (and more!), they still have their cheerleaders who overlook it just because they provide birth control (as if that wouldn’t be available without PP).

1. Largest destroyer of innocent but unwanted human beings in the country.

2. Systematic hiding of statutory rape.

3. Systematic hiding of sex trafficking.  This one is ironic because the sex slave trade is one of those few things that conservatives and liberals seem to agree is really bad.  Yet the Liberals aren’t bothered that PP helps hide it.

But there is so much more: They aggressively market increased consequence-free sexual behavior to your kids and discourage you and your faith from having any influence over their sexual decisions.  They want them to become addicted while they are young.

Please watch all of this video and share it with others.  It will help combat their DNC / mainstream media fabricated issue of Republicans allegedly being against birth control.

I say this with the usual extreme irony regarding PP’s materials for youth: Even though they market them explicitly for youth — and only youth — you should make sure there are no children around when you watch this.

If your neighbor showed that to your kids, you’d call the police (after you beat him to a pulp).  So why does PP receive nearly half billion of your tax dollars each year?

P.S. If your denomination and/or pastor supports Planned Parenthood there is a virtual certainty that you are in a fake church.

Case study: How the administration uses false teachers to manipulate “religious” people

False teacher Chuck Currie* offers us a glimpse into how the President manipulates useful idiots into advancing his agenda in President Obama Will Announce Contraception Accommodation That Expands Coverage.

President Obama will speak at 9:15 am to announce an accommodation that expands contraception access for women and meets the needs of religious employers with objections to offering coverage.  I’ve been briefed by senior White House officials and the plan is sound.

It has been obvious that much of what Chuck writes is simply a copy/paste job from Obama talking points, but I’m surprised he admitted it.  He appeared to do that with the Giffords shooting, ghoulishly and falsely blaming Sarah Palin before the bodies were cold, and he does it regularly on whatever the latest topic is.  I’m surprise he outed himself, though.

The parallels to the Nazis are so creepy: Fake Christians being mouthpieces for the culture-of-death government.

Religious employers will not be required to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. But those insurance companies will be required to provide free contraception to women.

A fact they never mention: This “contraception” includes abortifacients that kill human beings after fertilization.

Also not mentioned: Those sentences contradict each other and thus mean nothing.  It is still a requirement of making employers pay the costs.  Only in the fantasy world of Liberal economics is there such a thing as “free” health care.  Let’s see: The insurance companies “have” to give “free” health care in the form of contraception, but they would never, ever make up the costs anywhere else, would they?  Because that would mean the employers were still paying.

Fact: Either Chuck & Co. are failures at economics (that is what studies show) and/or they think you are an idiot.  It really shows how much contempt they have for people who value life and freedom of religion, when all they did was repackage the same mandate into allegedly more flexible language.

Note how they can — and probably will — do the same thing with abortion funding (“You don’t have to pay for it, your insurer just has to give it for free.  And they will gladly do so because it is cheaper than childbirth.”)

The religious angle is part of it, but I think what they are really trying to do is conflate contraception (very popular) with abortion (increasingly unpopular).  They know they are losing the stand-alone battle on abortion, as young people (i.e., Roe v Wade survivors) are becoming more pro-life.  But those same people want there to be access to birth control.

By merging the issues they think they have a better shot at winning the abortion battle.  And they may be right.  Like I say, Satan is evil but not stupid.  The end game is taxpayer-funded abortions, because they truly believe that one of our problems is that people are killing enough innocent but unwanted human beings.

Insurance companies would prefer to offer free contraception than to cover the costs of an unwanted pregnancy or diseases that contraception can help prevent.

This is creative thinking by President Obama and his staff.

Really?  Then why don’t those businesses do that already?  Why does the government have to force them to do it?

Creative?  Evil?  Whatever.  There is no right to health care.  A right to health care would mean that someone else has a moral obligation to provide it.

And people can buy all the contraceptives they like.  No one is proposing that they be illegal.  The cries about “access” are simply lies.

And the disease reduction bit is nonsense.  Graph the growth and Federal funding of Planned Parenthood and the exponential increase in STDs and don’t be surprised at the correlation.  Condoms prevent some diseases, but give a false sense of security on others.  And most other contraceptives increase the spread of disease because they perpetuate the sex-without-consequences fantasy.

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association, and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise.

The CEO of the largest baby killer in the country supports it?!  That’s all I need to know.  Read all about the founder of Planned Parenthood here, and how her dream of eliminating blacks and other “unfit” people is being fulfilled by people like Chuck and Cecile.

Many Christian denominations – the United Church of Christ included – strongly support contraception and have applauded the president’s efforts to expand coverage.

Many apostate denominations, that is.  You know, the ones that think they don’t need religious freedoms because their views are indistinguishable from those of the world.

Any opposition to this new proposal will be partisan politics, pure and simple.

Wow, what an amazing preemptive rhetorical move!  Now why doesn’t it ever occur to us to just start debates by saying that.  We’d win every time, right?

Finally, note the hypocrisy in all this.  Why aren’t the ACLU et al blasting religious people like Currie and Obama for forcing their religious views on others?

More on this at Jill Stanek’s blog


* Some views of the “reverend” Chuck Currie and nearly all other theological liberals:

  • Jesus is not God (so he denies the Trinity).
  • Jesus is not the only way to salvation.
  • Jesus is pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion.
  • The original writings of the Bible were not inspired by God, but you should believe. that the Holy Spirit told him and the other Liberals in the UCC that God has changed his stance on marriage, parenting and homosexual behavior (now that’s blasphemy!).  But it is still OK to quote any verses out of context if they seem to support your case for expanded government.
  • Asking “Caesar” to take by threat of force from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B counts as charity on your part and really pleases Jesus.
  • It is acceptable to take 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades.
  • The book of John doesn’t belong in the Bible.  Actually, most of the Bible doesn’t belong in the Bible.
  • The Gospel of Thomas does belong in the Bible.
  • It is more exciting to do sermons on Charles Darwin more than Jesus.
  • It is acceptable to lie and libel people on blogs as long as you think you won’t get caught.
  • It is acceptable to try to “out” commenters on public blogs as “haters”  to their employers when they point out how bad your arguments are.
  • Christians have as much to learn from other religions as they do from Christianity.
  • and so much more!

But he’s totally a Christian, because he’s a “reverend!”  And you know that because — unlike nearly every other reverend I see blogging — it is in his blog title and everything he writes.  It is almost as if he thinks you wouldn’t “know” he’s a reverend if he didn’t keep reminding you . . .

“The Holocaust was probably less than 3% of Germany’s budget” and other responses to Planned Parenthood distortions

Much has been made of Planned Parenthood’s marketing spin about “only” 3% of their services being abortions.  This is one of their lead arguments and it has been quickly swallowed and advanced by their supporters.  It is part of their effective campaign to conflate abortions (which are increasingly unpopular — especially with young people) with birth control (which most people reflexively support).  Yes, it is deceptive, but remember that Satan is evil, not stupid.  They could separate the businesses tomorrow and have zero problems getting funding for the contraceptive side, but that will never happen.

Here are some quick responses to make when you hear the “only 3%” line.

1. So?  The Holocaust was probably less than 3% of Germany’s budget.  If part of an organization’s charter involves killing innocent but unwanted human beings, then I don’t really care what other good they allegedly do.

2. I didn’t notice a wedge in the pie chart for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  How much of their resources are dedicated to those well-documented activities, and shouldn’t those who perpetuate those crimes be in jail instead of getting massive Federal funding?  [Note: Human sex trafficking is one of those rare issues that unites Liberals and Conservatives, so this is a great topic to focus on.]

3. The 3% figure deliberately understates the situation.  Just do some simple math: They did 329,000 abortions for 3,000,000 clients.  That means 11% of the people walking through the doors got abortions (or, more specifically, 11% of the people came in carrying an innocent but unwanted human being but left alone).  And it is very likely that abortions consumed even more services than average.

4. HP’s PC Division sells far more accessories than computers, but which is their primary business?  You need to look at where PP gets most of their revenue, which is from abortions.  PP doesn’t pay these salaries based on how many condoms they give away, they get it from performing 329,455 abortions. (P.S. They are the 1% so I hope the Occupy Crowd protests them.)

President Cecile Richards $353,819
Chief Operating Officer Maryana Iskander $288,886
Chief Financial Officer Maria Acosta $263,443
VP of Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins $257,115
VP of General Counsel Barbara Otten $251,379
VP of Public Policy Laurie Rubiner $248,438
VP of Operations Karen Ruffatto $247,932
VP of Affiliates Lisa David $245,322


Please commit a couple of those responses to memory and don’t let people get away with the “only 3%” distortion.  Feel free to copy and paste without attribution.

P.S. Yes, I’m familiar with Godwin’s Law.  I’m also familiar with Simpson’s Law, which says that I’ll make all the appropriate Nazi references I like without apology.

Well, duh.

newsI have always found advice columns to be interesting.  I typically prefer Carolyn Hax to Dear “just to be on the safe side, you better get divorced” Abby.

Part of a recent letter was interesting.  The part in bold warranted the title of the post.

I’m in a relationship phase that always makes me feel nuts. It’s the space between “being together” and not. One aspect is that the fling started more on the physical end than the, “Wow, you have really good morals and we like the same Chinese restaurant” approach. The similar interests, humor and understanding our compatibility came second.

It’s been about a month and it’s understood that we’re exclusive, but I don’t know how to take those steps to feeling secure in what we have without leaving tampons and a toothbrush over there to nudge us in the direction I want to go. He’s generally not much of a question-asker about my life and history, and so our emotional intimacy is less than what I want, mostly because my last relationship ended horribly and I’m hesitant to really share myself until I know I’m in something for real.

Not to pigeonhole men, but I think, as a guy, he’s pretty content with hanging out, sleeping together, eating out, playing guitar and having fun without worrying whether I’m his “girlfriend.” Yet here I am, over-analyzing, feeling a little nuts, but not wanting to show that, lest he run for the hills. Help me out here.

So let’s see: You don’t really know the guy that well, but you are already sleeping with him and are looking for more commitment.  Let’s just say you have things completely backwards.

I wish the writer would read how women who have multiple sexual partners damage their ability to bond with a future partner due to low oxytocin levels.  I also wish they would teach this in schools as part of truly comprehensive sex education that includes the horrors of abortion, the (un)likelihood that guys will stick around after having sex with you, the fact that if you finish high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage that it is virtually impossible that you’ll be poor, etc.  (The Liberal version of “comprehensive” is basically passing out condoms with a wink-wink theme that says, “Don’t have sex until you’re ready (and you’re ready whenever you want to be ready)”.)