New Stanek WND column: “NARAL fuels pro-abort civil war”
On Jan. 24, when the pro-abort divide between Clinton and Obama supporters was escalating into civil war, NARAL President Nancy Keenan issued an appeal for all sides to remain calm and focused on the real enemies, preborn children….
NARAL tried to redirect attention to the “staunchly, rigidly, undeniably anti-choice” Republican nominee John McCain in its almost daily e-alerts, which I receive.
But NARAL was unsuccessful. Thanks to sexier issues like Bosnia and Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media didn’t bite.
Meanwhile, the infighting continued. The Clinton camp kept pounding Obama as being soft on abortion because he voted “present” seven times as state senator on abortion legislation and because he wasn’t a woman….
NARAL’s endorsement of Obama last week came as a big shock, but it shouldn’t have. NARAL has been clear it is watching a bigger clock tick.
Still, feminists were infuriated….
NARAL wants to rebrand, and riding Obama’s coattails is one quick way. And oh, how NARAL wants Obama’s list, to lure stupid abortion-inclined abortion survivors. It doesn’t want to die as old pro-abort white women die.
The Obama campaign certainly shared polling data with NARAL, confirming its fears about McCain….
Continue reading my column today, “NARAL fuels pro-abort civil war,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
3,700 comments. Still doesn’t beat your 4,000 comment record, Jill.
IMO, it comes down to the presidential debates. Once all the primaries have blown over, it remains to be seen how Obama is going to flesh out his “change” mantra against Maverick McCain.
It shouldn’t prove difficult; Just ask him about life issues and watch him stumble for words.
About the Quote of the Day:
I thought the Supreme Court settled the Partial Birth abortion matter. Now these lesser courts can still rule to the contrary?
*shakes head*
I’m confused
“The federal law protects doctors who set out to perform a legal abortion that by accident becomes the banned procedure.”
How does one “accidentally” hose out gray matter?
“3,700 comments. Still doesn’t beat your 4,000 comment record, Jill.”
Unfortunately Carder, it only made it to 3685…
Carder, coincidentally, I’m working on an answer to that. Stay tuned.
This implosion of those two candidates in this party is hilarious to me. Considering that “the ends always justify the means” is the motto in this party. (Not saying that it isn’t present in the other one too.) The statements they are saying to each other are ridiculous! Because one is not a woman, they can’t possibly be AS pro-choice as the other.
PLEASE… how pro-choice does one have to be to have the end results come out the same?
Does anyone else get the feeling that party is running around like chickens with their heads cut off?
There are so many conservatives out there that have no idea who to vote for. They know that they should vote for the one that is less pro-choice but they don’t feel like voting at all! I can’t say I blame them. I know who I will have to end up voting for, because not vote will be asking one of those two clowns in your article to win… but I’m not happy. Not happy at all.
I also feel that the republicans are experiencing an implosion in their party as well. The socially and physically conservative people in this country are getting sick of what the party is backing. Something is going to happen. I can just feel it. So many people are voting for this candidate under duress.
NARAL’s political director, Elizabeth Shipp, explained some of its rationale to the New York Times:
[T]here was a feeling that endorsing Mr. Obama at a high-profile juncture might help NARAL shed its image as an organization for white women only.
“Has it been in the past?” Ms. Shipp asked. “Yes. Do I think the face of the choice movement is different today, and do I hope NARAL plays a role in that? You bet.” WorldNetDaily.com.
Here it is, from the horse’s mouth, proof that the majority of women aren’t buying the abortion movement’s claims that they are helping women. Ms. Shipp has renamed it “The Choice Movement”.
Whenever I hear “choice” I can’t help but be reminded of the old TV commercial slogan for Jiff peanut butter – “Choosey Moms choose Jiff”.
JIFF – Join In the Fetus Fight. Hmmm…
I don’t know Lisa, I’m more excited about this election then any in my lifetime. In the past, I was mostly trying to prevent the candidate I didn’t like from winning. Now I’m very happy with the prospect of President Obama. We’re headed for brighter days, that’s for sure.
I don’t know Lisa, I’m more excited about this election then any in my lifetime. In the past, I was mostly trying to prevent the candidate I didn’t like from winning. Now I’m very happy with the prospect of President Obama. We’re headed for brighter days, that’s for sure.
Posted by: hal at May 21, 2008 10:13 AM
——-
Are you sure you aren’t Michelle Obama? What you said sounds like something she said when she said she was NOW proud of her country. Celebrate your happiness now because it isn’t going to last forever! You’ll see. Money, freedoms, life, national security all but a memory and socialism and reasoning will be ever present as we get our head’s blown off by Iran and the Taliban. But boy won’t you be happy that Obama was made president!
Celebrate your happiness now because it isn’t going to last forever! You’ll see. Money, freedoms, life, national security all but a memory and socialism and reasoning will be ever present as we get our head’s blown off by Iran and the Taliban. But boy won’t you be happy that Obama was made president!
Posted by: Lisa at May 21, 2008 10:40 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And the SHARKS!
You forgot about the evil Obamasharks that will eat all the children!
(Oh my…)
Freedom? Like being allowed a lawyer if your arrested, and being told what you’re charged with? Money? Like the HUGE deficits GWB has run up? Price of gas through the roof (Oil companies getting rich, who’s the best friend oil companies have ever had in the White House?) National Security? Like the crazy war in Iraq which has motivated our enemies and reduced our ability to defend ourselves against real risks. You’re worried about Iran and the Taliban, but $3 billion a week fighting Iraq?
Hal, did you get all that information from the liberal news media? You know they’re liars. And Fox news certainly hasn’t said anything about our Constitutional liberties being taken away or our lives being in danger.
Freedom? Like being allowed a lawyer if your arrested, and being told what you’re charged with?
—-
No idea what you are talking about here.
—-
Money? Like the HUGE deficits GWB has run up?
—-
No argument there! He’s as bad as any liberal in there as far as spending goes. What made you think that a conservative would only vote for Bush?
—-
Price of gas through the roof (Oil companies getting rich, who’s the best friend oil companies have ever had in the White House?)
—-
Here’s where you are wrong. If we were allowed to drill, in the United States, in places that environmentalists whacko
…And the SHARKS!
You forgot about the evil Obamasharks that will eat all the children!
(Oh my…)
Posted by: Laura at May 21, 2008 10:47 AM
—-
I didn’t know there were Obamasharks! Yea… let’s not forget about them.
Come on Laura. I was using sarcasm but unfortunately, truthful too. These things are already fading in our country and will increase as we get a liberal president and keep this liberal congress. If you don’t believe me, look at the world’s history and what is happening in many European countries right now.
It’s all so crazy that when people look at why we are there, fighting Taliban, they suddenly have a huge lapse of memory on what happened in 2001. The Taliban aren’t targeting us because there’s a misunderstanding. They are targeting us because they hate us and want us to be gone from the face of this earth.
Posted by: Lisa at May 21, 2008 4:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh, genius-
We weren’t attacked by the Taliban, we were attacked by a contingent of AlQaida terrorists – almost all of them from Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban were the people we armed and supported during the Reagan Administration when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al Qaida were at each other’s throats until we invaded during the first Gulf War, and invading Iraq turned then into comrades.
If you don’t believe me, look at the world’s history and what is happening in many European countries right now.
Posted by: Lisa at May 21, 2008 4:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
European countries seem to be chuggin’ along just fine.
Freedom? Like being allowed a lawyer if your arrested, and being told what you’re charged with?
—-
No idea what you are talking about here.
I’m sorry, if you’re unaware of the Bush Administration’s position that they could arrest any “enemy combatant” or anyone the put that label on, and hold them without charges, trial, or a lawyer for as long as they want, then we shouldn’t be discussing politics.
Wow… thank you, Laura! I don’t think I’ve ever been called a genius.
Okay, I said the wrong name but before you feel too good about yourself, you might want to check your spelling of “Al-Qaeda”. I guess you can make mistakes too.
Also, European countries are “chugging” along fine. They are chugging their citizen’s money at a rate that would make people gasp over here. Socialism has a way of doing that. Hey, how would you like to pay what they pay for fuel over there, Laura? No problems, right?
@LIsa: Most people don’t drive in Europe- they use public transportation instead, or they bike/walk. European towns are not as spread out as towns/cities in the US.
Lisa,
The spelling of “Al-Qaeda” differs depending on the style of the English-speaking publication.
I have seen al-Qaida, al-Qa’ida and Al Qaeda (no dash) in various publications. Because it is a translation from Arabic, it is an approximate translation.
Same with Osama Bin Laden. The US government spells it “Usama.” Other presses, such as the French press, spell his name “Ussamah Bin Ladin” and “Oussama Ben Laden.”
When spelling Arabic words in English (or French, or Spanish for that matter) there is rarely one single, correct spelling, especially for names and places.
I’m sorry, if you’re unaware of the Bush Administration’s position that they could arrest any “enemy combatant” or anyone the put that label on, and hold them without charges, trial, or a lawyer for as long as they want, then we shouldn’t be discussing politics.
Posted by: hal at May 21, 2008 9:50 PM
——
I don’t know why you continue to link me with the Republicans, I am a conservative. Don’t assume.
You know, it is a shame that it took years to release some of these people but I also know that the Pentagon claimed that 36 former Guantanamo inmates were “confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism”. Also… U.S. officials are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade countries to accept them. Why is that?
I also remember hearing reports that they were treated very nicely there, for being suspected criminals.
Tell you what, why don’t we have a new release program for those still detained. Since you believe them to be innocent, sitting at your computer, why don’t we have them move into your neighborhood?
The truth is, we don’t know why some of them are still being detained. Since we are not in intelligence, we are not privy to that information. But I would suspect that it is for good reason. Why don’t we just let people do their job instead of worrying about criminal’s rights.
Tell me, what is your stand on abortion, hal? Are you as concerned for the unborn’s rights too? Or are they guilty?
You know, I find it surprising that all these people, all at once, are responding to my comments. They are all on at this same time. None of them over lapping in time. Just enough time to post another one. Hmmm… interesting.
The truth is, we don’t know why some of them are still being detained. Since we are not in intelligence, we are not privy to that information. But I would suspect that it is for good reason. Why don’t we just let people do their job instead of worrying about criminal’s rights.”
You have got to be kidding me. The point is, without some sort of justice, we have no idea if they are criminals or not, terrorists or not, democrats or not, etc. etc. If we have reason to believe these are dangerous people, tell some judge in some court and lock em up forever, I don’t care. But don’t you dare lock up anyone without having to present any evidence anywhere that you have a reason to do so.
“You know, I find it surprising that all these people, all at once, are responding to my comments. They are all on at this same time”
Probably in the break between the Daily Show and Colbert.
@Lisa: Are you implying it’s just one person replying to you under several different names?
Funny how skeptical some people are of the number of different people on the Internet at one time, yet they don’t think to question the lies the government filters through its MSM pawn.
Okay, I said the wrong name but before you feel too good about yourself, you might want to check your spelling of “Al-Qaeda”. I guess you can make mistakes too.
Lisa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My AlQaida spelling is straight off the back of a 2003 “US News and World Report.”
You have NO CLUE who we’re fighting in Iraq – or for that matter WHY we’re fighting them – you just think it’s important that we KEEP FIGHTING!
(What was the name of that Green Day album?)
Even our hopeless “Commander-in-Chimp” stated that Iraq and Saddam had NOTHING to do with 911.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush Says No of Evidence Saddam, 9/11 Link
By TERENCE HUNT, AP
09/17/03
WASHINGTON (Sept. 17) – President Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – disputing an idea held by many Americans.
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties,” the president said. But he also said, “We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11” attacks.
Bush spoke with reporters after speaking with leaders of Congress about energy legislation.
The president’s comment on Saddam, the deposed Iraqi leader, was in line with a statement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said he not seen any evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks.
Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that.”
09/17/03 17:09 EDT
Lisa,
“Tell me, what is your stand on abortion, hal? Are you as concerned for the unborn’s rights too? Or are they guilty?”
Do you really want to know?
Good Morning (everyone)!
The only post that I feel I have something new to add is the one from the post “Laura”, when they said, “You have NO CLUE who we’re fighting in Iraq – or for that matter WHY we’re fighting them – you just think it’s important that we KEEP FIGHTING!” and their article.
This is such a newsstand comment. “U.S. Has No Idea Why We Are Fighting Iraq
The way I see it, we need to commit fully over there, or pull out and God help the USA. None of this pacifist crap. Time has a way of healing pain from 911, but it also makes us forget and be stupid about why we are fighting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really, you seem to think we’re fighting the Iraqi insurgents over the pain of 911.
Who’s being stupid?
All was good until the news was telling them that we should be pulling out now.
Actually, all was good until we found out Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, and then he had to keep making up reasons to be there.
The media rightly recognized that we should not be at war with a country (can you explain why we’re waging war with Iraq and possibly Iran when we were actually attacked by terrorist groups? Last I checked terrorist groups =/= the government) over lies and propaganda spewed by government.
Here are a couple more questions to ask yourself:
Why are more of our soldiers committing suicide than ever before?
Why aren’t our soldiers getting medical care?
Why are our soldiers killing civilians?
Why are our Constitutional rights being taken away under the guise of patriotism?
What does the Patriot Act really say?
Also look for the New York Times’ series: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon
Really, you seem to think we’re fighting the Iraqi insurgents over the pain of 911.
Who’s being stupid?
Posted by: Laura at May 22, 2008 10:51 AM
—————-
Well… right now I can think of one person. Done!
I’ll answer these, only.
———
Why are more of our soldiers committing suicide than ever before?
———
Because people like you are telling them they are fighting a worthless war.
———-
Why aren’t our soldiers getting medical care?
———
They are getting care. But if you are talking about over here when they get back… this is a perfect example of what Universal Health Care will get you. The same governmantal bureaucracy.
———-
Why are our soldiers killing civilians?
———-
Always a potential of war, come on.
———-
Why are our Constitutional rights being taken away under the guise of patriotism?
———-
Whose constitution? For foreigners that may or may not have committed a crime? In my opinion, they shouldn’t be protected under of nations laws. There are protocols and Geneva conventions to address prisoners
Lisa, I think you have lost any right to complain about declining morality. I’m horified by your responses. When did you complete high school? Don’t they teach Civics anymore? And FYI, Bush thinks he can ignore the consitutional rights of US citizens too.
Lisa, I think you have lost any right to complain about declining morality. I’m horified by your responses. When did you complete high school? Don’t they teach Civics anymore? And FYI, Bush thinks he can ignore the consitutional rights of US citizens too.
Posted by: Hal at May 22, 2008 2:11 PM
———–
Trolls?
Ok, poster named hal. Be horrified. When there’s nothing left to say, there’s always attacks to fall back on, right “hal”? Done.
This is what you said:
“Whose constitution? For foreigners that may or may not have committed a crime? In my opinion, they shouldn’t be protected under of nations laws.”
I’m speechless.. Sorry about the attacks.
Lisa,
Your answers are appallingly ignorant.
Why are more of our soldiers committing suicide than ever before?
———
Because people like you are telling them they are fighting a worthless war.
The US army has sent mental health specialists to Iraq to determine why so many soldiers are committing suicide there, a US media report said.
Eleven US soldiers and three Marines have killed themselves in the past seven months in Iraq, an annualised rate of 17 suicides per 100,000 soldiers.
…
Depression, harsh and dangerous living conditions, a long deployment and the accessibility of weapons could contribute to the problem, experts said.
In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces.
t found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 than non-vets.
And you’re telling me that they’re all committing suicide because someone said the war was pointless? I think they’ve figured that out for themselves.
Why aren’t our soldiers getting medical care?
———
They are getting care. But if you are talking about over here when they get back… this is a perfect example of what Universal Health Care will get you. The same governmantal bureaucracy.
Do Soldiers Receive Adequate Mental Health Care?
Soldiers share troubling stories of military health care across the U.S.
Read the news! The soldiers are CRYING for our help and you’re saying they’re getting enough care??
Do you even KNOW any vets? Because I do, and their stories alone have been enough to convince me that our government does not care about our soldiers.
Why are our soldiers killing civilians?
———-
Always a potential of war, come on.
———-
So you’re telling me that the 665,000 estimated dead Iraqi civilians were just a “potential of war”? At what point does the killing of civilians become unnecessary to you?
Even Bush estimates about 300,000.
Here’s another link from the Washington Post.
Note: This was published in 2006. How much higher do you think it is now?
Unnecessary yet?
Why are our Constitutional rights being taken away under the guise of patriotism?
———-
Whose constitution? For foreigners that may or may not have committed a crime? In my opinion, they shouldn’t be protected under of nations laws. There are protocols and Geneva conventions to address prisoners
P.S. I could have posted a bunch more links on each of those topics, but for some reason it only lets you post two at a time.
For further reading, feel free to Google any of those topics. I highly recommend sites by veterans who actually know what’s going on in Iraq, or the BBC is great because it doesn’t have a U.S. bias.
Edyt: Do you even KNOW any vets? Because I do, and their stories alone have been enough to convince me that our government does not care about our soldiers.
One of my brothers was in both Gulf wars, a major in the Air Force, and at the least there are certainly a variety of opinions among our soldiers.
One thing that really bummed a lot of military people out was Bush cutting what was to be the funding for veterans health care by $10 billion in the 2007 budget. The Congressional Budget Office was going with the figures to maintain purchasing power at 2006 levels, but Bush whacked it down at a time when the needs are not only maintaining, but increasing quite a bit due to the Iraq war.
Moreover, the way things are now, the Vetarans Administration is projecting no spending increases in the years 2009 through 2012, and this is just crazy, since they know their caseload will continue to grow into that period. Word of these facts makes its way around fairly fast among the troops.
I’m not saying that all sodiers are going around saying, “screw Bush,” but there indeed is a lot of bad feeling based on the current administration.
http://blogs.thestironline.com/?p=16
Appologies for the last word.
The endorsement of NARAL shows up clearly that Obama is Liberal. If elected he will take away our freedoms faster than anything the Bush Administration has done.
The endorsement of NARAL shows up clearly that Obama is Liberal. If elected he will take away our freedoms faster than anything the Bush Administration has done.
Posted by: Lennie at May 22, 2008 11:16 PM
which freedoms to you think Obama would want to take away?
1st Amendment
2nd Amendment
4th Amendment (already eroded by the Bush Administration)
5th Amendment (already eroded by the SCOTUS with Kelo)
10th Amendment
Lisa,
What last word? You couldn’t come up with anything to refute any of my statements.
I believe Lisa meant the last word in the article calling Obama a Jack___.
There are plenty of veterans sites that have the truth about what is happening in Iraq as well. Those same soldiers are amazed at how little the MSM is reporting all the good things taking place. The war has gone much better than MSM reports according to them.
I don’t agree with everything in the Patriot Act, but much of it is needed and the rest should be repealed/left to expire.
As far as fighting still in Iraq, I’d rather see us on the offensive instead of just sitting around waiting for an attack.
Anyone else scared of the freedoms Obama will take from us if he becomes President with a Democratic controlled Congress. I’d prefer a deadlock with McCain and a Democratic Congress, so little gets done. We’re all better off if the government is in a stalemate.
We’re all better off if the government is in a stalemate.
Ha! Right on, Lennie. So often that is true.
Breaking news: Michelle Obama and “whitey”
Democrat strategist Bob Beckel, known to underplay problems within his Party but still somewhat of a straight shooter, just mentioned on Fox & Friends he is worried about a rumor he’s heard about Michelle Obama – a bomb Republicans…