Why Planned Parenthood supports deploying women in combat: Abortion
The Hill columnist A. B. Stoddard maintains the Pentagon’s announcement last week that it would allow women to be deployed in combat did not come out of the blue, although it certainly appeared to.
I was suspicious of a liberal agenda, of course. But still I found Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ tweet quite curious:
Ty Secretary Panetta for lifting military ban on women in combat #equality
— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 23, 2013
Why would a woman purposefully support sending her sisters into harm’s way to be injured or killed in combat or raped and tortured as POWs? Is it really all about proving we are equal to men in every way?
But moderator Carder’s choice of today’s Quote of the Day turned on the light bulb.
Of course the abortion industry would support sending women into combat. CNN anchor Don Lemon nailed the foremost problem:
Men and women are different, we know that. How should the military handle pregnancy, for example, for women in combat units? Should a combat unit leader be able to direct a woman member not to get pregnant?
No, liberals and conservatives both would protest.
But if a woman finds herself pregnant in combat, there are serious questions. If she wants to carry her baby to term, can she be compelled to stay and fight anyway? In certain situations there may be no other option. Can she be ordered to leave? Either way, does she put her unit at risk?
What if a pregnant mother goes into labor in a foxhole? It could happen. There are mothers who successfully hide their pregnancies or don’t know they’re pregnant. We’ve all heard the stories.
But what about pregnant mothers on the front lines who don’t want to stay pregnant? They’ll need a quick fix. They’ll need an abortion. And therein lies the reason liberal feminists and the abortion industry support deploying women in combat: It’s a gateway to force the military to provide abortions, which at present it does not.
Feminists and the abortion lobby have for years – every year – tried to overturn the ban against offering abortions at military facilities. They also, of course, support public funding of abortions of women in the military.
Deploying female soldiers to the front lines almost forces the military to do both, in the interest of maintaining its strength.
If this happens, doctors, medics, and nurses in combat military units will be forced to learn the procedure, a side benefit to the abortion industry – desensitization as well as future employee prospects.
I can also foresee women supplied with the morning after pill and menstrual extraction or menstrual regulation packs (photo right) as part of their combat kits.
Menstrual extraction was devised by feminists in the 1970s to self-suction uterine contents when a period is late. This is what Yale student Aliza Shvarts claimed she did for her infamous art project.
Objectively speaking, liberal feminists would obviously be forced to approve deploying women in combat by their obsession with being just like men, which is the opposite of true feminism.
But clearly, they have an agenda, and as always, it exploits and hurts women.
Also, don’t be surprised if President Obama and Cecile Richards have plans to slip Planned Parenthood into this entire process.
[Bottom photo via M. Lal International]
UPDATE 10:05a: Another great point:
That's more money to big pharm companies too. Birth control & sterilization. "Periods" on the front line? NOPE @JillStanek @cecilerichards
— Mrs Perez (@RoperCoast) January 28, 2013
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.
You got it. Another way to bring tax paid abortions into the military. In Israel where they require women and men to serve upon high school graduation, women one year and men three years…the govt. will pay for one abortion for the women.
Judaism actually will support abortion though, so it’s not so hard entrenched like with authentic Catholicism. I don’t agree with Judaism on that regards but I understand why they’d offer it to their women when they require them to serve for a year.
I am fearful for our military. The military has ALWAYS been the guinea pig for social experiments.
If a pregnant woman gets shot, it could be two murders depending on where she would get hit,
True feminism is about femininity, being the opposite of men. There is NOTHING feminine about fighting in a war.
Looks like what Israel did with their female soldiers. It’s either forced abortion to continue serving or if they chose life, cut them off from any kind of support due to a dishonorable discharge.
Long term plan – weaken the US military, something both Communists and Islamic radicals can both agree upon is beneficial for them.
“If a pregnant woman gets shot, it could be two murders depending on where she would get hit”
Deaths in war zones are not typically classified as murder. The exception is if established rules of armed conflicts (think Geneva conventions, etc) are violated in the process. Thus you can kill a woman who takes up arms for armed service, but not after she surrenders, for example.
I am fearful for our military. The military has ALWAYS been the guinea pig for social experiments.
The door swings both ways though; the military also integrated faster than many facets of American society.
“If a pregnant woman gets shot, it could be two murders depending on where she would get hit”
A solider killed in combat is typically not classified as a murder. However, you raise an interesting question considering that baby can’t be classified as a solider. What worries me is that if a woman is wounded and found to be far enough along in her pregnancy, would doctors be able to try and save both lives, or disregard the fetus’ given the situation. This is going to cause more emotional damage then we can possibly imagine.
“Judaism” might support abortion, and Israel might. but you simply cannot find support for abortion in the old testament / TNK. Unless you really stretch. Babies and pregnancy are always mentioned as a good thing, and as blessings.
David was interested in Bathsheba, and got her preggers. He could have sent her to the next nation-state for a quiet abortion. Instead, he opted to use his opportunity as a military leader to put her husband in harm’s way in battle. It was more acceptable to him to think of allowing the danger of war to finish off her husband then to end the life of the baby.
I don’t think there’s anything unfeminine about going to war. That was one of the things I was always told about women and war that I thought was complete b.s.
“It’s not in women’s nature to kill, blah blah blah.”
Let me tell you: if i thought someone was going to harm me, you better believe I’d be able to pull a trigger without a second’s hesitation, and no regret. Kill or be killed, war is hell.
Do I understand your analogy New? Are you equating racial equality in the military with aborting, suctioning and mutilating the innocent unborn of military women in combat and calling it progress? That is really a sick stretch of imagination, New are you a new troll or a old one with a new moniker?
This sounds like a Celeste Richards-Valerie Jarrett-Barack Obama meeting of the minds. If I understand it correctly VJ helped mastermind the Obamacare Mandate to come after Catholics/Evangelicals Conscious Protections even after Joe Biden told them to back off. It must be a powertrip to be Pro-Death in the WH right now.
New, I have to ask, will you change your name to old after you post a certain number of comments?
I wondered where Obama was going to blind-side us next.
This is clever. Give thousands of military women “a shot” that prevents their menstration for a year. This is, of course, birth control — and they all know it. So there will be plenty of “safe” sex. The birth control will fail, and there will be plenty of pregnancies. These must be dealt with — by taxpayer-funded abortions and coercion.
And the idea that military-trained abortionists will staff Planned Parenthood, like military-trained pilots staff the airlines? That is sheer genius. Evil and twisted, but genius all the same.
We underestimate our opponents at our peril. Obama’s passion for “change” is real, and we are always two steps behind him.
“Judaism” might support abortion, and Israel might. but you simply cannot find support for
abortion in the old testament / TNK.
I wouldn’t say that Judaism “supports” abortion. Much depends on what branch you are talking about. Acording to Orthodox Judaism, abortion is allowed only when the life of the mother is in danger, not for convenience, though there are exceptions. Conservative Jews are more liberal about the issue and Reform Jews are the most liberal of all.
http://www.uscj.org/koach/kocmar05berezovsky.htm
But yes, abortion is permitted in israel and they have a fairly high abortion rate for a small country. Female soldiers are not allowed one, but two free abortions. And if they do not end their pregnancies they are discharged with no benefits. But there is a strong pro-life movement there:
http://www.beadchaim.com/
On a side note, my daughter Samantha visited Israel last summer through Teach for America. There are number of programs that allow Jewish students, including those who are part Jewish, to visit Israel, all expenses paid. She told me that during these trips some young women try to “hook up” with Israeli soldiers — I guess some of them are quite nice-looking — and for this reason, many Israelis think American girls are “trampy.” It’s a shame.
The Dear Leader has said he wouldn’t want his son playing “violent” football. I wonder how he’d feel about his daughters serving on the front lines of combat.
Thanks for the info on Israel, phillymiss. Sorry to hear of the “trampy” American girls. Your daughter must be a special young lady to be selected to go on this trip. How are you doing phillymiss? God bless you and your family.
Alyssa: “True feminism is about femininity, being the opposite of men. There is NOTHING feminine about fighting in a war.”
So…is it then manly and masculine to have your head blown off?
See, this is what bothers me about those opposed to women in combat because it’s “dangerous” and “the battlefield is no place for a woman.” They seem to be just peachy-keen with a man being there. Men are expendable, according to them.
I thought the whole point of going to war was to defend women and children.
How does having inferior combatants, be they male or female, improve the probabilities of successfully completing the mission?
“So…is it then manly and masculine to have your head blown off?”
Yeah, if you don’t want to get blown up or think that your life is worth as much as a woman’s you obv aren’t a real man. *rolls eyes*
Women who are currently serving are already forced to either abort or leave the military. This is not a new argument. See this article – – http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/us-air-force-mom/index.html – this is not the only incident.
I’m not sure where I stand on women in combat, but all I can say is that women not being able to kill is BS.
You come after me or my babies or anyone I love – *cocks gun* – I won’t think twice. Mama Grizzly, anyone?
When there’s a threat coming at you, women can be just as capable as men to neutralize the foe with whatever means necessary!
kenthebirther says:
January 28, 2013 at 2:48 pm
How does having inferior combatants, be they male or female, improve the probabilities of successfully completing the mission?
I would make an exception for the co-womander in chief. Give the panty waisted priss a weapon with an empty magazine and let him take the point.
Then when the girly man get himself in trouble and is screaming hysterically for help and wetting his granny panties let him wait 7 hours for help that is never coming.
You’re so sexist Ken. If you want to insult Obama, “lol he’s such a woman” is a stupid way to do so.
Send post-menopausal women in – they’re more hardened anyhow and won’t get pregnant. The U.S. hasn’t done real well in its wars since 1945, so maybe it doesn’t matter who we send into battle.
And where are all those anti-war folks?
Surely if they are against sending men into battle, they should object to sending women.
Women in the military has nothing to do with whether or not they are physically fit enough, or if they can handle the realization of having to kill a man or get killed. Although, I agree with women not belonging in any type of military service that involves them fighting or going over seas because I believe men and women are designed differently chemically and that by nature they were designed to be nurturers. Like hell yes we have back bone of steal. We have to in order to endure labor, and like hell yes a woman will fight tooth and nail for her children if in danger, but still, MAN was called by God to be the priest and protector and head, and for that reason alone we as women should respect his responsibility to do so. How do we expect men to be men if we keep taking all their roles and forsaking our own? The very main reason women should not be in the service (combat aside) is because of the danger of rape. Cases like that are already happening and going unreported because they are being rapped by people in command and are either not listened to, or threatened. Any women that would willingly put herself in a situation like that is a fool. When men go off to war they leave all sense of chivalry behind. We all know what war can turn good men into, and how we have had to deal with the side effects of war trauma on our own soil and within our own families. Women, if you want to be strong, you want to be feminine…stay home, raise good healthy kids, love your husband, father, and brothers, use the talents in ways hurting soldiers will need. ‘Cause I will tell you one thing, for a good man in combat, there will be nothing more heartbreaking and crushing to his spirit then to watch a women die beside him and him feeling helpless because protecting her, her children, and their freedom is exactly what he started fighting for.
“The very main reason women should not be in the service (combat aside) is because of the danger of rape. Cases like that are already happening and going unreported because they are being rapped by people in command and are either not listened to, or threatened”
Well, a full third of military rapes that are reported have male victims (and I bet there are more since men tend not to report sex crimes against themselves), so it’s not like banning women from the military stops that particular problem. And I don’t see why improving the way the military deals with sexual assault isn’t an important goal. Throwing up your hands and banning women isn’t really going to deal with the structures and culture that hide these assaults and make it impossible for victims to get justice. And putting the onus on women to prevent sexual assault by hiding out at home is just… not cool.
In all fairness, The Sun King version 2.0 is rather dainty, from what I’ve seen of him.
Well, a full third of military rapes that are reported have male victims (and I bet there are more since men tend not to report sex crimes against themselves), so it’s not like banning women from the military stops that particular problem.
Nope. And here’s a bigger problem: those military men sometimes come home and rape their wives. Staggering proposition when you consider that if a military man is the sole breadwinner in a family, and the military is the sole income that breadwinner has been able to hold down, reporting him to the police for a violation of the UCMJ that will get his butt kicked out of the military and basically ruin his life and destroy your family financially by proxy isn’t exactly the most advantageous move to make.
Hey, I know! Ban military men from marrying or having significant others of any kind! But ya know, I guess any woman who willingly put herself in a situation like that is just a fool.
9_9
No, but men can’t get pregnant now can they. And that is the point of this article.
I think the idea of putting women in combat really stinks. But the abortion industry probably likes it because of all the abortions it’ll create. Why else would Cecile Richards like the idea so much?
We all know that women will protect their children like a momma Grizzly (well at least pro-life women will) but this is not the same as female soldiers being sent into combat zones.
I have friends with sons in the military who hate this idea of women in direct combat, they express things like ”it would be hard enough to have a male fellow soldier being tortured, beaten or maybe even raped by the enemy during capture or combat but to have a woman being subjected to such treatment would make it unbearable for me to not breakdown”. “It would tear me apart”. ”I have been taught to protect women and children all of my life before being in the military by my parents, it is second nature to me.” “War is already bad enough, I don’t need to have to worry about what will happen to female soldiers with me in combat zones especially with crazies like the radical Jihadist.” “This is just another good reason with this present commander-in-chief to get out of the military asap.”.
It’s not that women are not strong and that these men are sexist. It is because the emotional and mental torture these young men would go through would be made even worse being made to watch women being brutalized. No one can say this is not likely to happen. Do you know what they did to the Ambassador and the other 3 men at Benghazzi that were just killed on 9-11 and to the female reporter who was captured a couple of years ago by radical Islamist (she at least escaped with her life).
As a veteran, I find this move disgusting, having women on the front lines.
We’ll the country is going down the toilet so it’s no surprize.
JackBorsch says: January 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm “You’re so sexist Ken. If you want to insult Obama, “lol he’s such a woman” is a stupid way to do so.”
JB,
Just illustrating that inferior combatants is a gender neutral concept. mr. bo-jangles is an excellent example of a person who is not fit to serve….But b o has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to let children, women and men die while he diddles, dallies and dawdles along. He is sniveling coward and a simpering fool.
X woman is about ten times the man the obamateur will ever be and her femininity is not threatened.
I apologize to females everywhere for inadvertently putting them in the same category as this dainty decadent and debauched castratti masquerading as a man.
“lol he’s [persumably referring to b o.] such a woman” is not my work.
That statement is an insult to real women.
Just to be clear, most men would meet the current minimum physical standards for combat duty, most women would not. For the women who can satisfy the same standards as men and who want to serve in combat duty, then you go girls.
But relaxing the standards in order to integrate inferior combatants into combat units only serves to weaken our military and endanger their mission.
” It’s not that women are not strong and that these men are sexist. It is because the emotional and mental torture these young men would go through would be made even worse being made to watch women being brutalized. No one can say this is not likely to happen. Do you know what they did to the Ambassador and the other 3 men at Benghazzi that were just killed on 9-11 and to the female reporter who was captured a couple of years ago by radical Islamist (she at least escaped with her life).”
Well, maybe “protect women and children” is a toxic ideal, and a better one is “protect those who need help and protection, regardless of gender and age.” I’m never going to see why it’s more tragic if a woman who gets raped or murdered than if a man is tortured in the same way, maybe there is something wrong with me but I don’t think that male and female lives have different values. If we stopped treating women like children that can’t ever help themselves that can make their own decisions, and stopped treating men like their expendable and should always be able to take care of themselves, maybe the thought of a man being tortured would be just as horrible as a woman being tortured.
Why can’t I type properly!! *they’re expendable.
ktb: “How does having inferior combatants, be they male or female, improve the probabilities of successfully completing the mission?”
‘cept we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about fully qualified combatants, be they male or female. I’m not in favor of easing the qualifying criteria. But if a woman can pass those, then all systems go.
Jes: “‘Cause I will tell you one thing, for a good man in combat, there will be nothing more heartbreaking and crushing to his spirit then to watch a women die beside him…”
…but if he sees his male comrade die beside him, he should shrug it off and have another cup of coffee, since men are more expendable than women. That the gist of what you’re saying, Jes?
JackBorsch: “Well, maybe ‘protect women and children’ is a toxic ideal, and a better one is ‘protect those who need help and protection, regardless of gender and age.’ I’m never going to see why it’s more tragic if a woman who gets raped or murdered than if a man is tortured in the same way, maybe there is something wrong with me but I don’t think that male and female lives have different values. If we stopped treating women like children that can’t ever help themselves that can make their own decisions, and stopped treating men like [they’re]expendable and should always be able to take care of themselves, maybe the thought of a man being tortured would be just as horrible as a woman being tortured.”
As we say on the Internettz, “This.”
The sexism inherent in opposing women in combat is primarily an anti-male bigotry, not an anti-female one. If you say death and torture are “worse” when they happen to X, then the obvious corrolary is that they’re “not as bad” when they happen to y.
bmmg39 says: January 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm
ktb: “How does having inferior combatants, be they male or female, improve the probabilities of successfully completing the mission?”
‘cept we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about fully qualified combatants, be they male or female. I’m not in favor of easing the qualifying criteria. But if a woman can pass those, then all systems go
bmm g39,
You are arguing with yourself and it is difficult to determine who is winning/losing.
The only reason I would ever put the obamateur in a combat role would be to demonstrate that some males just are not up to the task.
But it would also be fun to see b o go toe to toe with moochelle using punji sticks. Especially if she just toyed with him and ground his nicotine ravaged body into the turf. [Please tell me what brand of cigarettes the obamateur preferrs and I will mail hm a cartoon from the nearest reservation.]
Did you hear b o claims that he has actually fired a gun at Camp David.
the obamateur wants to give the impression that he too is an angry white man clinging to his goddess and his gun.
Maybe the Kenyan will next claim will be that he defended moochelles honor in a dueling match at 400 paces with a Daisey Golden Eagle BB gun.
simper phi phoney
No bmmg39, that is not what I am saying at all. Do you always put words in people’s mouth? my statement still stands. Yes it is hard for any person to watch a friend and fellow solider die, but watching a woman die is all the more harder because they possess beauty men do not, and it is in man’s nature to recognize this. There is No NEED or justification for women in the army and it is disgraceful to our nation to even question that. We are such a joke to other nations for how our women behave and are treated, and this is just one more thing to bring us shame.
So women should not participate in combat because they are prettier to men? Um, okay. That is possibly the worst argument I’ve ever heard for or against anything, ever.
“Yes it is hard for any person to watch a friend and fellow solider die, but watching a woman die is all the more harder because they possess beauty men do not, and it is in man’s nature to recognize this. There is No NEED or justification for women in the army and it is disgraceful to our nation to even question that. We are such a joke to other nations for how our women behave and are treated, and this is just one more thing to bring us shame.”
Wait, it’s sadder to watch women die because they are beautiful? Well, I’m pretty, will the world weep when my beauty is gone? Lol.
If you want to argue that it’s socially ingrained that men protect women, so it’s harder to watch them die, that might be an argument worth having. I would like to change this social conditioning to “everyone who can, protect those who need it” rather than “men protect women”, but I don’t deny that we are conditioned to the latter at the moment. I don’t think it has anything to do with women being beautiful, though. It’s more that they are generally smaller.
And what are you talking about, we are a joke to other nations because of how our women behave and treated? Who thinks they do better, Saudi Arabia? India?
Again, I didn’t say prettier. I said beauty. That is both a physical description and can be used to discribe character. You people are ridiculous. If you want to send your daughters off to war, then shame on you, but I will not be mocked for standing on biblical truth and saying what fools will not.
So women have better character than men, so it’s okay for men to be slaughtered but a tragedy if women are killed? All right then.
I don’t know any biblical truths that say men’s lives are worth less than women’s, but again I’m not a Christian so I might have missed something.
I never said better. Beauty is an attribute to one’s character that women have and men simply do not because they have other attributes that contribute to his character such a leadership. Someone with your character seems to know little about that though. I think you’re just confused as to what you are because you don’t even know what it means to be a man.
“Beauty is an attribute to one’s character that women have and men simply do not because they have other attributes that contribute to his character such a leadership. Someone with your character seems to know little about that though. I think you’re just confused as to what you are because you don’t even know what it means to be a man. ”
Pure silliness and outdated gender essentialism. Last I checked I was a man, I could check again though. :D
Yeah. That’s pretty sexist. Women can’t lead, because we don’t have that attribute to our character? Because we have “beauty” instead, whatever *that* means? Are you flipping kidding me? What a load of bullcrap.
You’re just confused X. Now run along to the kitchen like a good girl and make me my dinner.
One the one hand, it’s less tragic when men die, but at least we can lead. I guess it’s not sexist if it balances out. 9_9
I <3 you, Jack. But if you ever told me that irl, I’d slap you. :P
But.. I was told I have natural leadership as a part of my character, wouldn’t you just do what I say? ;P <3
In all seriousness, I hope you would check to see if I was being sarcastic before you slapped me, I’ve been hit so many times by people taking me seriously. :D
Jes: “Yes it is hard for any person to watch a friend and fellow solider die, but watching a woman die is all the more harder because they possess beauty men do not, and it is in man’s nature to recognize this.”
Good thing I’m not putting words in your mouth; you do such a wonderful job of being insulting by your own letters.
Jes: “Again, I didn’t say prettier. I said beauty. That is both a physical description and can be used to discribe character. You people are ridiculous.”
That’s one of the most breathtaking juxtapositions of all time. Men are more expendable than women because they possess a certain physical beauty that men do not, and because they’re also beautiful with respect to personal character. Aaand, those who disagree with that are ridiculous. Ho-kay, then.
“If you want to send your daughters off to war, then shame on you, but I will not be mocked for standing on biblical truth and saying what fools will not.”
Do you want to send your sons off to war, Jes?
Jes: “I think you’re just confused as to what you are because you don’t even know what it means to be a man.”
He doesn’t ascribe to your absurd gender norms, you mean…
“In all seriousness, I hope you would check to see if I was being sarcastic before you slapped me, I’ve been hit so many times by people taking me seriously.”
Aww, I’d not hit you, Jack. Laugh in your face? Absolutely. I could never slap you, no matter how playfully. You see, my character is just too beautiful. XD
And I have the leadership skills to tell you not to do that, xalisae.
Seriously, though: I know you’d never assault anyone…
Verbal beat-downs are more intellectually satisfying.
I’ve heard a few stories of combat from soldiers that would give anyone nightmares. I realize all war movies are just that-movies. However, it seems many of those movies are strangly realistic in the depiction of front-line combat. It’s hard to watch as actors mimic the way men become almost unrecognizable from their “home” personalities. I believe men are simply better “wired” for such a tranformation, which is required for survival on the field of combat. I’m sure many women can come kinda of close to that mindset, but I don’t think women can ever match it enough to survive long-term combat. We are equal to men in many things, but we must accept that we have different strengths, else the human race would not have made it this far in time.
Furthermore, if a woman chooses to train for combat duty, I would hope she would be responsible and intelligent enough to provide herself with birth control. Except that can, and does fail sometimes. Yet another eason for women to not be in combat zones. I believe a male soldier is better assisted in his duties with the women as support troops. It’s not that I don’t think women can’t be trained to fight in combat; we simply don’t have a connection to the warrior mindset. Being “Mama Bear” to protect our families is a far cry from what is needed on the battlefield. Two very different ways of reasoning for survival.