Tag Archives: hyde amendment


Budweiser: Queen of Beers –I’m not a beer drinker (or wine, for that matter . . . I do enjoy a cider now and then), but if I was I’d never drink any Budweiser products.  They have joined what I think is a misguided attempt to appeal to Millennials by showing how “woke” they are.  After all, who in their right minds would risk alienating the 98% to appeal to the perverted 2%?  Or perhaps it is another big company where the otherwise normal people live in fear of opposing any pro-LGBTQX initiative, no matter how ridiculous, for fear of being identified as “haters.”

Budweiser has been positioning itself as the beer of homosexuals. The campaign continues . . .

Best of the Bee

To Avoid Problems With Lyric Slides, Innovative Church Prints Out Songs And Compiles Them Into Book | The Babylon Bee

YouTube To Run All Potentially Offensive Content Past Easily Spooked Possum | The Babylon Bee

Not the Babylon Bee

Snapchat Introduced Pedophile Filter for Gay Pride Month

U.N. Human-Rights Official: U.S. Abortion Bans Are ‘Extremist Hate’ and ‘Torture’ — I’m pretty sure that have your limbs ripped off and your skull crushed is more like torture and more of an example of hate.   But the Human Rights official knows better, of course.

We’re gonna need a lot of millstones to clean this up . . .

Heartbreaking: LGBTQXYZ Exploiting Down Syndrome Community

Christians Show Up at Gay Pride March With Apology Signs — Sickening virtue signaling from the “Christian” Left.  First, they are preaching lies to people.  Second, they seek glory for themselves by apologizing for things they didn’t do.  Just lies upon lies, but what do you expect from the blinded men  of Sodom?

Biden advisor: His latest flip-flop on the Hyde Amendment isn’t really a flip-flop — Good news for Trump.  Biden is obviously pandering and desperate to portray it as a thoughtful switch — uh, because apparently the Constitution not only guarantees you the right to kill your child up to her first breath, but to do it for free!

But Biden and the rest of the Molech-worshiping Democrats forget that most people oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.  The middle ground basically says you can kill your children if you like, but don’t make them pay for it.

Women in Pakistan face child marriage, domestic abuse, and ‘honor killings’ — Meanwhile, the Left — including the “Christian” Left — fights the “patriarchy” of the West.  So very brave of them.

Transanity of the week, brought to you by the Left — including the “Christian” Left

Liberals Claim, “Women Aren’t the Only Ones Who Have Abortions”

“Jack,” almost hilariously, complains about Planned Parenthood constantly ‘misgendering’ them. Perhaps it was because Jack had a vagina and uterus and an XY chromosome, and Planned Parenthood provides services to women. The author writes, “Although Gutiérrez went to Planned Parenthood, they were constantly misgendered and there was no option for preferred pronouns or name on the intake form.”

Again, that’s because, you know…women have babies and therefore, women have abortions. Because, you know…science and stuff.

“Jack” says: I got called ‘Miss’ and ‘Ma’am’ all the time. And [the staff] was super sweet to me, but I was too terrified to really sit down and have a conversation and say, ‘Hey, my pronouns are this and my identity is this, could you stop doing that?’ I was too busy going, ‘Holy [expletive], I’m in a clinic and I don’t know what to expect.

“Jack” says that Planned Parenthood now has multiple gender options on their intake forms so that a supposed “man” can actually request an abortion (I kid you not). The experience supposedly left Gutiérrez feeling “violated, shameful and, later, angry.”

And insane.  Still insane.

Just for fun – the Police Squad show was hysterical.  Leslie Nielsen and the writers were brilliant.


Obama’s pro-abortion extremism

baby1.jpgI highly recommend this article by Robert George, where he clearly and emphatically annihilates the myth that Obama will reduce or even try to reduce abortions. 

If more people would have understood these facts before the election things might have been different.  But just because he will be our President doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to convey the truth on this crucial topic.

George starts by showing that while some people might be charitably considered “pro-choice,” many are not pro-choice at all.  They are pro-abortion, and Obama fits that category — just as someone who claimed to be pro-legalized slavery could be fairly described as pro-slavery even if he didn’t own slaves himself.

Some samples:

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being “pro-abortion” and being “pro-choice.” Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called “pro-choice,” then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, “forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.” In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in uterowere it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.

But this barely scratches the surface of Obama’s extremism. He has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons.” In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”

It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not endure. He has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing “pro-choice” about that.

But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is “pro-choice” rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.

Please find time to read the whole thing and link to it.

Also see Barack Obama – pro-partial birth abortion, among other things.