Category: Reproductive Rights


All Life Is  Precious photo AllLifeIsPrecious_zps717c96cc.jpg

This Whole  thing makes me weep and mourn the loss of our  humanity.

I want  to be perfectly  clear.  I am  pro choice , however ,I  am not pro  murder  at the whim of an irresponsible  , self absorbed monster who has no respect  for life.  Abortion is not  birth  control, it is  to  be used in dire circumstances  under conditions and terms of  the  law  which  are  violated  by  people such as  this.

While  I  am a  firm  believer  that a  woman  has the  right  to  choose   that  does not  give  any  person the right  to do anything  as  heinous  as  this.  I  would never  personally choose abortion  as I  feel I could not live  with that  choice  personally.  However, I  do not believe  that  I  have  the  right  to choose for another   as is the  case  in  rape and  incest  victims.  To condemn a  woman  to  carry  out the  pregnancy   which   was  the result  of an  attack  is cruel and unusual  punishment making  that  woman  a  victim   twice.  I  do not  believe  that  anyone  has  the  right  to  impose  that  on  another  human  being.  We  must  each  make our choices  and live   with  their consequences  and the part  we  played in it.

Those calling for abortion to  be   illegal because   no one has the right  to  go through  with  an  abortion  would take  a  step back and judge not lest  you  be  judged.  When  society  does a better job   at  taking  care  of  all the unwanted  children  that  we  already  have  and  no one  even  gives a  second  thought   to .  When instead  of condemning  a  young girl who has made a mistake, she  is  taken in and  counseled and  nurtured  then  perhaps  society  can  have a  say . But  not  until then.  For you to pass  judgment then  you  must  first  walk a  mile in their  shoes.  Some out there have  absolutely  no idea  what  other less  fortunate   human  beings  have  to  live through.  Until you  do  , you  don’t get  a say  in  what they  need to  do  to  live it.  Unless  you are planning  to  step in and  help!

That  being  said, those of  you   who have  waited  till  you are   7months  pregnant to   go  through  with  an abortion  should be put in  jail.  You  had  7 months to  think about  it , to  allow that   child to  grow  inside your  body  , to  feel it  move inside you  and   you  still believe  it  is  something  that  needs  to  be  removed  and thrown  out like so much  garbage?

At  7  months it is not only   ILLEGAL to   perform  an  abortion  it  is  IMMORAL and  REPREHENSIBLE.

How  dare  you?

How dare  anyone   think that they have  the  right  to  take a life in this manner and  walk  away with no consequences.  You  had  the  opportunity  to use   birth control and opted out  or it  failed (it  happens).  But  you  also had  ample time to  understand  what  needed  to be  done  if you truly cannot have that  child.

What  were  you  doing   in those   7 months that  was  so  important  that  you  could not  do the responsible thing?

What  in the  world  could  have  been  so important?

To those  performing  the abortion what  kind of  uncaring  unfeeling monster  are you to take a child that is  alive  , breathing  and completely  helpless and  do something like this?

To  treat that  small baby  like it  did  not matter.

Dear  God and we wonder  why  we  are  in  the  situation  we  are in?

Only an  unfeeling uncaring Monster  with  no  heart  could do something like this  and  feel no  remorse……

I like  to believe  that  there  is   good in all people and  it  is stories like this  that  make me think I  am so  very   wrong.  There is   so  much  apathy  and disregard  for  life  in this society.  One  life not as worthy as the  next   depending  on   who you are and  what  level of  society  you  come from.  Self righteous screamers  and  utterances  of curses and punishments who  are   at the  ready  to point  out  the faults  of  others  but  are blinded  to their own  lack of faith in  what  is  expected of  them.  When we  are taught  to love  our  neighbors as  we  love  ourselves , it  did not  say unless they  are poor, raped,imperfect,or  sinners.  It is  not your  job  to   judge  , it is  your   job to be there  to  help pick up the  pieces  and  make this  world a better  place.  Last  I  checked  pointing  fingers  and  yelling insults did not make the  world  a better  place.

Laws  are in place   and   they  need  to be   enforced. Why are they  not  being   enforced?  These  are  crimes  as  real as  the ones committed  at the Boston Marathon.

Why are law  enforcement and FBI not all over this?

This  is a hypocritical issue  everyone pulling   in their  respective  direction and  no one  really  addressing the  problems that   bring it  about.  A little more love  and  care  and   a  lot less   accusations  and  judgement  would go a  very  long  way  in that  respect…….

~Desert Rose~

***********************************************************************************************************

April 25, 2013
cnsnews

black

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) (AP)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) took to the House floor on Wednesday, condemning the late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, saying, “May God forgive us.”

Black also blasted President Barack Obama for not speaking out against the “house of horrors” abortion clinic run by Gosnell, who would sever the spinal cords of babies with scissors after they had survived late-term abortion procedures.

“Mr. Speaker, I stand here today outraged and deeply saddened by the heartbreaking story of the abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell,” said Black.  “This is the man currently on trial for the murder of eight people, seven of which were newborns who were killed after surviving late-term botched abortions in his house of horrors clinic.”

“But Gosnell didn’t act alone,” she said.  “He had a host of silent co-conspirators who referred women to his practice knowing full well of the horrors that went on behind those closed doors.  And, meanwhile, the State boards gave Gosnell a free pass for 17 years by failing to inspect his clinic.”

gosnell

Dr. Kermit Gosnell. (AP)

Gosnell, 72, is currently on trial for the murder of four babies born alive and a mother, who overdosed at his clinic the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia.  Gosnell was originally charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, but Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart dropped three of the charges onWednesday, apparently concluding that the prosecution did not present enough evidence that the babies in those cases were “not viable,” or born alive.

Gosnell is also facing charges of infanticide, conspiracy, abortion at 24 or more weeks, theft, corruption of minors, solicitation and other related offenses.  The six-week long trial is set to conclude on Monday, with closing arguments after Gosnell’s defense rested on Wednesday, without offering any witnesses. Gosnell did not take the stand.

Rep. Black also condemned President Obama for not speaking out against Gosnell who, according to the grand jury in the case, had killed “hundreds” of babies over the years by snipping their spinal cords.

“When asked about Gosnell’s crime, our president tells us he has no comment,” Black said.  “Where is your outrage, Mr. President?”

Read Full Article And Watch Video Here

*********************************************************************************************************

Gosnell Trial Witness: Baby Abortion Survivor Was ‘Swimming’ in Toilet ‘Trying to Get Out’

April 18, 2013

Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington RSS
Follow Elizabeth Harrington on Twitter

gosnellDr. Kermit Gosnell, charged with 7 counts of first-degree murder, killing babies reportedly born alive at his abortion office in West Philadelphia, Pa. (AP)

(CNSNews.com) – On the last day of testimony before the prosecution rests in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, a former worker at Gosnell’s clinic testified that she saw one late-term baby who survived an abortion “swimming” in a toilet and “trying to get out.”

Kareema Cross, a “medical assistant” who worked at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society clinic for four-and-a-half years, testified in a Philadelphia court today, telling of the horrors of babies who survived abortions only to have their necks snipped with scissors.

“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.

“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.

The baby “was like swimming,” she said.  “Basically, trying to get out.”

Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.

Cross told the jury that when Shayquana Abrams came into the clinic in July 2008 she was pregnant, “and she was big.”

“That was the largest baby I ever saw,” Cross said.

When the baby was born alive, Abrams was sleeping.  Cross said Dr. Gosnell took the baby boy, which she described as 12 to 18 inches long, and put him inside a plastic container the size of a shoebox.

“The baby was still breathing,” she said.  “He didn’t cut the neck right there.”

The baby was too big for the plastic container, with his arms and legs hanging over the sides.

“The Doctor cut the back of the baby’s neck but didn’t do suction—normally Dr. Gosnell would do suction … to suck the brains out,” Cross said.

“I called people over to come see it [the baby] and we took pictures,” she said.

Grand Jury Report, Abortionist: 'This Baby Is Big Enough to Walk Around With Me or Walk Me to the Bus Stop'Baby Boy A, allegedly killed after being born alive and then having his spinal cord cut at the abortion office of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. (AP)

The baby boy had curled himself into the fetal position and laid on his side in the box.  An image of the baby taken by Cross was shown to the court, showing him laying lifeless on his side.  (the photo of the infant, Baby A, is included in the Grand Jury Report and is posted in this article.)

“It was supposed to go upstairs in the freezer, but it was still there the next day because the janitor complained,” Cross added.

Read Full Article Here

About these ads
950:
“State executive agency for carrying out eugenical sterilization”
Date:
Circa 1935
Pages:1 of 1
Source:
The Harry H. Laughlin Papers, Truman State University, Lantern Slides, Black Case,Section 12

View this image in our new website.

&quote;State executive agency for carrying out eugenical sterilization&quote;

Copyright 1999-2004: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; American Philosophical Society; Truman State University; Rockefeller Archive Center/Rockefeller University; University of Albany, State University of New York; National Park Service, Statue of Liberty National Monument; University College, London; International Center of Photography; Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin-Dahlem; and Special Collections, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
The images and text in this Archive are solely for educational and scholarly uses. The materials may be used in digital or print form in reports, research, and other projects that are not offered for sale. Materials in this archive may not be used in digital or print form by organizations or commercial concerns, except with express permission.

25 Billion People Makes Case for Global Sterilization Program

Does Global Elite have Master Plan to Reduce Population to a Managed Equilibrium?

Current Economic System Unable to Distribute Resources Properly in the coming 22nd Century New World Order

by Johnny Punish

Veterans Today

Today, my friend in India told me that the government is instituting a plan to make sure everyone installs a box on their TV so that they can monitor their behavior and install an entertainment tax. Entertainment Tax? That’s crazy! My first thought was how desperate was his government that they had to deploy this repressive tax.

Well, it turns out that India is desperate.  They are grappling with over population and how to distribute resources.  So they put up silly crazy taxes like this Entertainment Tax to try and pay for it.  But it is just trying to stop a coming flood with Silly Putty;  in the end, it’s too late.  It won’t work!  There is nothing under the current economic system that will stop the coming hell from visiting us. Here me out!

30 years ago, India was more free. The government was less involved.  There were less people.  Today, they provide controlled cooking gas canisters to the people and shut of the electricity at various times because there just isn’t enough to go around. And don’t get me started on clean water.

With the population of India currently over 1.2 billion people and growing fast. With a developing consumer market that is seeing the creation of many new super rich and an unseemly fast growing super poor, the divide is becoming more clear. And what is worse, the population is expected to hit 2 billion by 2050.

There is simply not enough resources to deal with this population. Let me rephrase that….under our current global capitalist system of resource distribution, there is not enough resources to deal with this population. In short, the rich will get theirs but the poor are out of luck.

Now expand this challenge to the other population exploding areas where resources are already on the edge and we about to enter a new era of human existence.

In short, right now we have 7 billion people on our planet. By 2050, experts agree that we are going to be around 10-12 billion and by 2100 that number could reach 25 billion. But hold on….25 billion people? Can that really happen?

Under our system we have a ruling elite class of people in global finance and global political leadership folks that are fully aware of this population challenge. Some call them the Bilderberger Group; or Bilderbergers. Whomever they are, rest assured that they derive their power from our monetary economic system that is current in place and they will collective aim to insure that this unequal system of resource distribution continues forward.

Read Full Article  and  Watch Videos Here

*************************************************************************************************

Professor of Anthropology

Jonathan Marks

Jonathan Marks
Department of Anthropology
UNC-Charlotte
email: jmarks@uncc.edu
phone: (704) 687-2519
fax: (704) 687-3209

The Eugenics Page

During the first few decades of this century, the most influential geneticist in America was Charles B. Davenport. He taught at Harvard until 1899, and then moved to the University of Chicago briefly, before founding the Carnegie Institution’s genetics and evolution laboratories at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. Shortly thereafter, he persuaded Mrs. E. H. Harriman, widow of a railroad tycoon, to endow a Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor as well.

According to Davenport, in his major work, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (1911),

“The general program of the eugenicist is clear — it is to improve the race by inducing young people to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates; to fall in love intelligently. It also includes the control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent. It does not imply the destruction of the unfit either before or after birth.”

Falling in love intelligently is, of course, harder than it may sound. And who are the “mentally incompetent” and “unfit”? According to Davenport, it was obvious. They were the people who had the broadly distributed genes for “feeblemindedness”. The genotype could be easily diagnosed from the phenotype, and indicated a general atavistic, non-human nature:

“The acts of taking and keeping loose articles, of tearing away obstructions to get at something desired, of picking valuables out of holes and pockets, of assaulting a neighbor who has something desirable or who has caused pain or who is in the way, of deserting family and other relatives, of promiscuous sexual relations — these are crimes for a twentieth-century citizen but they are the normal acts of our remote, ape-like ancestors and (excepting the last) they are so common with infants that we laugh when they do such things. In a word the traits of the feeble-minded and the criminalistic are normal traits for infants and for an earlier stage in man’s evolution.”

The plan of the eugenics movement was that since the poor had these genes for feeblemindedness, which led them to misery, vice, and crime, the obvious solution to American social problems was to sterilize them, and restrict the immigration of more poor.

Davenport’s friend Madison Grant was a wealthy New York lawyer, Yale graduate (1887), and an ardent amateur naturalist. He had helped to found the New York Zoological Society, and introduced the eugenic ideals to mass audience in his best-selling The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Grant built on Davenport’s genetics to produce a master plan for ending crime and poverty, along with a calculus for emptying the jails and balancing the budget.

“A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would allow solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”

Eliminate the social failures, says Grant.
Kill all the nerds?
Sterilize the social discards and then the worthless race types! says Grant. Oh, but wait — if they’re not worthy of propagation, why are they worthy of life?
Details.
These ideas resonated with a wide spectrum of people from all political backrounds. After all, it was scientific! Grant’s book was praised by his friend, former president Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: “The book is a capital book: in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts that our people must need to realize…. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman, and all Americans should be grateful to you for writing it.” Much depends, obviously, on how one interprets words like “elimination” and “worthless race types”. The Passing of the Great Race was translated into German in 1925, and Grant received a fan letter from aspiring politician Adolf Hitler as well: “The book is my Bible,” wrote Hitler to Grant.

It would be nice to think there were relatively few things Theodore Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler agreed upon, but this was one. It was a scientific, modern solution to social problems.
Meanwhile, back in the US, Charles Davenport had hired Harry Laughlin as his right-hand man to run the Eugenics Record Office. Laughlin testified for Congress about the poor germ-plasm of the immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, during the hearings which culminated in the Johnson Bill, restricting immigration in 1924. He also testified before the Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell (1927), in which Virginia’s right to sterilize a poor woman involuntarily was upheld. The majority decision, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., used the most modern opinions of science to render a verdict.

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area.

Thus, the first edition of Principles of Genetics can talk very casually about people whose stock ought to be eliminated on the basis of their contributions to society. The senior author, Edward Sinnott, became a professor at Columbia, and later, dean of the Yale Graduate School. The junior author, Leslie C. Dunn, also became a professor at Columbia, and became an outspoken critic of racist biology after the Nazis came to power. This passage (and the entire chapter it is from) does not appear in the editions that followed the stock market crash and the Depression, when it suddenly became clear to geneticists that wealth wasn’t necessarily a good indicator of genotype.

Geneticists were slow to get it. Many, of course, believed it; they came from the privileged classes and shared the cultural prejudices of the era. Others may not have agreed with Madison Grant or Charles Davenport, but didn’t disagree with them publicly. In fact, during the heyday of the eugenics movement, virtually every geneticist of note served below Grant and Davenport on the Advisory Board of the American Eugenics Society. (Alongside Madison Grant, as it were, Henry E. Crampton was a paleontologist, Fisher an economist, Laughlin a geneticist, Little a geneticist—who founded modern mouse genetics in America— Olson a judge, Roswell H. Johnson a geologist, Davenport a geneticist, and Fairchild a sociologist.  Obviously it was a broad intellectual movement, that believed in genetics!).  One notable exception among the geneticists was Thomas Hunt Morgan, from Columbia University, who worked in the same building as anthropologist Franz Boas, a tireless critic of eugenics. Morgan published some polite reservations about eugenics in the mid-1920s, but not enough either to piss anyone off or to allow people to invoke his prestige to repudiate the movement. In the mid-1920s the only critics of eugenics were non-scientists or soft scientists, like Boas and Clarence Darrow, a great defender of civil liberties. Darrow evolved from biology’s champion at the Scopes trial in 1925 to biology’s basher in 1926.

The Nazi Eugenics Program Never Stopped

DiscloseTruthTVDiscloseTruthTV

Published on Dec 20, 2012

Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport warned of alarming future trends in the genetic engineering of human beings. Based on his contacts with several scientists over a period of 20 years, he’s concluded that human genetics research is basically a continuation of the Nazi eugenics program, and that medical research into genes as causes of human illness is simply a cover story.

Part of this secret agenda, he detailed, is to demonstrate that people have genetic predispositions to certain diseases like cancer, so in the case of lawsuits, this argument can be made rather than placing blame for illness on environmental factors like pollution. In citing the book Remaking Eden, Rappoport noted that author Lee Silver foresees a time when the “gen-rich” (genetically enhanced class) will account for 10% of the population, while “naturals” will work as low paid service providers/laborers.

Eventually, the gen-rich class and the naturals will become entirely separate species, with no ability to crossbreed, Silver continued, adding that the trend for genetic enhancement was inevitable. Rappoport had no doubt that some of this research was already underway, possibly under compartmentalized lab studies, so that scientists don’t even realize the significance of what they’re working on. “The best thing that could happen,” he stated, “is that recognized doctors and researchers stand up together, and say, this has to stop.”

Biography:

Jon Rappoport has worked as an investigative reporter for 20 years, and is the author of five books. He has written on medical fraud, deep politics, and health issues for newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe, including CBS Healthwatch, Spin, Stern and LA Weekly.The LA Weekly placed Jon’s name in nomination for a Pulitzer Prize, for his interview with the president of Salvador University, where a military takeover had occurred.

Wikipedia
Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the Aryan race through eugenics at the center of Nazis ideology. Those humans were targeted who were identified as “life unworthy of life” (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed under Action T4, a “euthanasia” program

After the eugenics movement was well established in the United States, it was spread to Germany. California eugenicists began producing literature promoting eugenics and sterilization and sending it overseas to German scientists and medical professionals.[3] By 1933, California had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined. The forced sterilization program engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s

Hitler’s views on eugenics

Adolf Hitler read racial hygiene tracts during his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. He thought that Germany could become strong again only if the state applied the principles of racial hygiene and eugenics to German society.

Alexa Traffic Rank for http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Galton.htm: 5,701iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects

The science of eugenics was invented by Sir Francis Galton, an amateur British scientist. The term eugenics was coined by Galton in 1883, though he had been doing research and writing in the field for some time before then. Galton also did research in several scientific fields including geography, meteorology and anthropology.
Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin and the son of a wealthy, influential family. In 1869 Galton wrote a book called Heredity Genius in which he followed the lives of several accomplished men from, what he considered good families. These good families, Galton claimed, were more likely to produce intelligent and talented offspring.Galton concluded that it was possible to produce “a highly gifted race of men” by the process of selective breeding, which he later termed “positive” eugenics. Discouraging the reproduction of “undesirables” was subsequently termed “negative” eugenics. (Dolan)The “negative” eugenics movement was much stronger than the “positive” eugenics and swept across the U.S.

************************************************************************************************

Hmmmm,  so  what  happened  to  courage  of  convictions?  A fetus is a child when a  woman  wishes  to  terminate  a  pregnancy.  It  is  the  murder  of an  unborn  child is it  not ?  Unless of  course  a fetus  dies  due to  negligence of a  hospital or  physician (and  Catholic  at  that )  then  it is a  fetus  again and  not a child?

Hypocritical  much??

~Desert Rose~
*********************************************************************************
By David Ferguson
Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:48 EST
Fetal ultrasound via Wikipedia Commons

A chain of Catholic Hospitals has beaten a malpractice lawsuit by saying that fetuses are not equivalent to human lives. According to the Colorado Independent, in the death of a 31-year-old woman carrying twin fetuses, Catholic Health Initiatives’ attorneys argued that in cases of wrongful death, the term “person” only applies to individuals born alive, and not to those who die in utero.

Lori Stodghill was seven months pregnant with twin boys on the day she died. The Independent reported that on New Year’s Day 2006 in Cañon City, Colorado, Stodghill was admitted to the Emergency Room at St. Thomas More Hospital complaining of nausea, vomiting and shortness of breath. She lost consciousness as she was being wheeled into an exam room and ER staff were unable to resuscitate her.

It was later found that a main artery supplying blood to her lungs was clogged, which led to a massive heart attack. Stodghill never woke up, dying an hour after her admission to St. Thomas. Her twins died in her womb.

Frantic ER personnel had paged Stodghill’s doctor, obstetrician Pelham Staples, but the doctor never answered. A wrongful-death suit filed on the twins’ behalf by Stodghill’s husband, corrections officer Jeremy Stodghill, maintained that Staples should have made it to the hospital or ordered an emergency cesarian section by phone in order to save the 7-month-old fetuses.

Defending attorney Jason Langley argued in a brief he filed on behalf of the hospital chain that the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
Read Full Article Here

One of the two hospitals which reportedly refused to conduct an exam on a possible rape victim last month.Zoom

DPA

One of the two hospitals which reportedly refused to conduct an exam on a possible rape victim last month.

A 25-year-old possible rape victim was reportedly refused a basic exam at two Catholic hospitals in Cologne last month. The Church says the impression that rape victims can’t be treated at Catholic hospitals is “false.”

The case of a possible rape victim who was reportedly refused treatment by two Catholic hospitals in Cologne last month has prompted a strong reaction by the Catholic Church and local victim advocacy organizations.

 

ANZEIGE

The local daily newspaper, the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, published an article Wednesday detailing the experience of an emergency center doctor, Irmgard Maiworm, one night last month. Maiworm told the paper that on Dec. 15, a 25-year-old woman came in to see her, accompanied by her mother.

The woman told the doctor that she had been out with friends on Friday night, and that at one point she went blank, not remembering anything until coming to on a bench in a different part of the city Saturday afternoon.

“I immediately suspected that this young woman might have been drugged with a date-rape drug, so that rape was not to be ruled out,” Maiworm told the paper. The woman reportedly complained of pains and difficulty going to the bathroom and wore soiled clothes.

With her permission, Maiworm contacted the police and informed the woman of the risks of pregnancy and gave her a prescription for the “morning-after pill.” She told the paper that she then called the gynecology department at the neighboring St. Vincent’s Hospital to arrange for the woman to have a gynecological exam, only to be told by the doctor there that such an exam would not be possible.

 

Read Full Article Here

NRSC Spent Big On Todd Akin Race After Claiming To Abandon Him

 

Todd Akin

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent $760,000 to the Missouri Republican Party in the first days of November, which was used to give the embattled Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) a last-minute campaign boost, Politico reports.

Just two months prior to making that move, the NRSC had publicly promised to abandon Akin, who said in August that “legitimate rape” does not lead to pregnancy.

“It is not only wrong that the NRSC would provide funds to support a dangerous extremist like Todd Akin, it was underhanded and dishonest that they would purposely mislead the public about their actions,” Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told The Huffington Post Friday.

The Huffington Post reported on Oct. 31 that over $700,000 had been funneled into Akin’s campaign through Missouri’s Republican party, but the NRSC refused to say whether or not they had spent the money. Most of the national GOP establishment, including super PACs like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, had cut Akin off after trying and failing to oust him from his Senate race.

The last minute TV ad buy for Akin, of course, made little difference, as the candidate lost by a 15-point margin to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Election Day Nov. 6.

The NRSC declined to comment.

This story has been updated to reflect the NRSC’s response.

 

Watch Video Here

Why Did Romney Lose?  Conservatives Blame Single women?

155668991

If either of these women recently had tons of sex, they voted Obama
Photograph by Darren Hauck/Getty Images.

Now that the shock of losing has settled in, the conservative media has moved on to the important task of castigating the various demographics that broke for Obama, a reaction that can in no way be one of the reasons said demographics dislike Republicans. Since Obama won basically everyone but nonurban white men and their wives, there are a lot of different groups to hate on, but a clear front-runner in the Blame Game has emerged: single women, who gave 68 percent of their vote to Obama, compared to 53 percent of married women who voted for Romney.

There are many reasons for this divergence, including age, income, and racial differences between the single and married women, but right-wing media looks to be settling on a favorite explanation: Loose gals vote Obama. Unlike, say, Sean Hannity’s now evolving position on immigration, clearly morphing in order to somehow get his guys a few Latino votes, this impulse to label single women as sluts is certainly no one’s idea of voter outreach. But it does serve the dual purpose of demonizing Obama voters and reminding Fox News and rightwing talk radio audiences of their favorite porn narratives. Laura Ingraham, sitting in as host of The O’Reilly Factor last night, brought together a panel of church ladies to sneer at the unmarried and their wanton ways:

 

Watch video  here

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.comThe overall narrative of the segment is, to paraphrase: Single women are so obsessed with birth control and abortion that they can’t be bothered to care about the economy or even take care of their kids. There were many jaw-droppers during the segment, but my favorite might be Gretchen Carlson saying that married women vote more on the economy, “because when you’re married, abortion is not really—or contraception for that matter—is not maybe a huge part of your life.” In Carlson’s bizarro world, only single women have sex and only married women have kids. (Contrary to any stereotypes trotted out on Fox News, married people have more sex than single people, so you really shouldn’t put “getting laid more” on your list of reasons to avoid the institution.)

Other right-wing pundits were even more crass. Andrea Tantaros accused single women of voting for no other reason than wanting “free” birth control. Rush Limbaugh was his usual delightful self on the topic of single women having sex that doesn’t involve him, saying that by being pro-choice, Obama treats women “like vaginas” and that Republicans need to “start our own abortion industry” to get women’s vote.

Reproductive rights do matter to female voters, as I’m the first to say. Some male voters, too, the ones who remember what conservatives apparently forget, which is that sex without making a baby every time is a winning proposition for men, too. But there’s no reason to assume that if Romney and Obama had the same views on contraception access and abortion rights, that Romney would have cleaned up those single female voters. Like married women, single women do vote on economic issues, of which the ability to control how many kids you have to feed is but one. Carlson gets close in the above segment to admitting this, but she frames it as single women being “dependent” on the government, completely ignoring government programs that married women are more likely to benefit from, such as the mortgage deduction or the new tax breaks for married couples.

None of these pundits even consider the possibility that it’s not just single women who think about reproductive rights when they vote, but that plenty of other Americans—some loyal viewers of Fox News, I would imagine—also vote on reproductive rights, specifically to take those rights away. Perhaps the real truth is that if everyone just gave up on the sex and gender wars and let people do their thing, it’s not the Republicans who would benefit.

 

 

 

Representations of the Women’s Movement Are Often Too Reductive

Much has been made about Obama’s victory and the female voting bloc that helped him get re-elected. Relevant meme after meme, like the one above, has sprouted across social media.

The gist: If you’re happy about Tuesday night’s victory, thank a woman. Women usually make up about 54 percent of the electorate, and this time they again turned out in higher numbers than men. Unsurprisingly, they also turned out in much higher numbers for Obama than for Romney. Some 55 percent of women voted for the former, while 44 percent chose the latter.Within the subset of women ages 18 to 29 — especially those who attended college during the Bush years, a group that will be voting solidly Democrat for the next 65 years – the numbers skew even more heavily towards Obama.

In other words, the GOP, at least as it now presents itself,doesn’t stand a chance. It didn’t Tuesday, and it won’t in 2016, no matter how deeply its victories cut in the South. Something’s gotta give.

Other contingencies were, of course, also crucial to Obama’s victory. Hispanics (Florida Hispanics too!), LGBTQ voters, youth in general, Black Americans, Asian-Americans, and pro-labor groups handily threw their support behind the president.

This makes Fox News crypt-keeper Charles Krauthammer’s claim that Obama doesn’t have a mandate all the more laughable. To quote Andrew Sullivan during his gleeful appearance on the Colbert Report, “There’s a black man in power who has nothing to lose!”

But here’s the thing about the women’s movement that gets lost sometimes, even on itself. The policies it promotes intersect with the needs of lots of other communities, and not only because of (the obvious) minority women. Health care, reproductive rights, gender equality, and non-discrimination policies are not only about women, though the latter are often implied to be the sole beneficiaries of such legislative gains.

Obama likes to call them “family” issues, but such rhetoric is annoying and offensive because it blatantly discriminates against single and unmarried people. For instance, why do we push for health care for partners in quasi-/post-nuclear-family constructs, instead of advocating for free health care for all? It’s also annoying and plain stupid, since two-thirds of single women voted for Obama both this past Tuesday and in 2008.

Another problem? When referring to “women,” the media tend to default to white, heterosexual, cis women, usually married. It should be noted that Romney captured 56 percent of the white women’s vote and 53 percent of married women’s vote.

So to be a bit more nuanced, these so-called “women’s issues” are often actually the issues of the middle class, labor, and other groups. The right wing’s determination to defund Planned Parenthood earlier this year, for instance, was not just an assault on the aforementioned default woman. Rather, you should see that the campaign spotlighted how Republican legislation often more pointedly affects people of color and low-income communities.

Defunding Planned Parenthood would have disproportionately impacted minority communities, worsening the already abhorrent disparities in healthcare coverage. When Texas tried unsuccessfully (at least as of yesterday) to cut off federal funding to their Women’s Health Program — not just Planned Parenthood, but also those “affiliated” with abortion providers — they were cutting off healthcare to 130,000 people, many of whom were poor Hispanic women…..

 

Read Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Politics / Legislation  :   Rule Of Law – Women’s Rights -  Reproductive Rights

 New Todd Akin Videos Reveal His  Dystopian Nightmare Vision of America

By

152715270

Todd Akin is scared.
Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images

After becoming a national scandal with his claims that “legitimate rape” cannot result in pregnancy, Rep. Todd Akin has been slowly regaining lost ground in the contest against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill for a Missouri Senate seat. Akin’s strategy has been to characterize the remark as a mere misspeaking that is not indicative of his larger character, and the strategy must be working, because at least one poll has him up by one percentage point.

But the left-wing PAC American Bridge 21st Century pointed me toward some C-SPAN videos that make it very difficult to take the “legitimate rape” thing as an anomaly.

One revealing glimpse into the Akin worldview: May 24, 2005, Akin’s speech denouncing stem cell research on the House floor. It’s a marvel of right-wing paranoia in which he fantasizes about what will happen if stem cell research continues—if it reaches what he calls “step three”—based on a story about harvesting organs from real humans that his daughter wrote:

My own daughter wrote a little story—I will read it—about step three. “I live with 40 others in a compound, supervised by cool, efficient orderlies. Instead of playing, I stood pondering a troubling dream from the night before. It was of a loving father, giving his child a name. I’ve always been just 5-25-61-B.”

Looks like someone’s been reading Never Let Me Go.

Here’s a clip of the speech, in which he also drops this gem of a quote characterizing women as climate control and food distribution systems: “Now an embryo may seem like some scientific or laboratory term, but in fact the embryo contains the unique information that defines a person. All you add is food and climate control, and some time, and the embryo becomes you or me.”

Daily Kos did some minor reporting on Akin’s weird ideas about abortion providers, but watching the full speech Akin gave on Jan. 22, 2008, reveals that his statement, “And yet we have terrorists in our own culture called abortionists,” is just a minor part of an elaborate fantasy about who abortion providers are, what they do, and why they do it.

Who wants to be at the very bottom of the food chain of the medical profession? And what sort of places do these bottom-of-the-food-chain doctors work in? Places that are really a pit. You find that along with the culture of death go all kinds of other law-breaking: not following good sanitary procedure, giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant, cheating on taxes, all these kinds of things, misuse of anesthetics so that people die or almost die. All of these things are common practice, and all of that information is available for America.

It is clearly lost on Akin that the image he’s invoking—of dirty clinics that operate illegally and misuse pain medication—is the reality he’s trying to create. He wants to ban abortion, which is a surefire way to get a whole bunch of  illegal, underground clinics that aren’t held accountable to standard medical practice. If you want clean, safe abortion, you need it to be legal.

 

Watch Videos Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,571 other followers