Very important celebs urge Obama FORWARD on “reproductive rights”
Standing in the way of access to emergency contraception? Seriously, Mr. President? What’s up with that? You gotta be kidding me.
That needs a hashtag.
Mr. President, we have drawn the line against these relentless assaults against reproductive rights. We need Congress to act now to stop the attacks and protect our rights and our health.
We need you take a stand on this, too.
~ Celebrities Stanley Tucci, (pictured), Morena Baccarin, Mehcad Brooks, Whitney Cummings, and Lizz Winstead, urging President Obama to move forward with pro-choice legislation in Center for Reproductive Rights “Draw the Line” campaign, via Gateway Pundit, May 23. CRR’s first “star-studded” video was released last October.
May.24, 2013 6:00 am |
Contraception, Obama, Pop Culture |
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.
All I saw in this video was five victims of PP and faux-feminist bullying.
Seriously?? Has Obama stood in the way of anything on the homosexual, feminist, pro-abortion agenda?
“Very important celebs”? I assume that you have your tongue in your cheek. I’ve never seen or heard of any of these people.
Their idea of “forward” means more abortions, more abused & coerced young women, more breast cancers, more promiscuity, etc.
That’s some utopia they want, there.
We all know what “more reproductive health” means. It does not mean healthy reproduction. (As Chesterton put it best: ”The problem with Birth Control is that it is neither. By Birth Control, they mean that they want less birth and no self-control.”)
We want more marriages, more children, and more happiness. That is the Forward that we seek. We see that more health means less “reproductive health.” For the good of our country and our culture, we are trying to get our government out of the birth control business.
“Reproductive health?” Yeah right, largely in the context we see it used, it’s anti-reproduction, as a euphemism for birth control & abortion rights. Let’s call a spade a spade.
I am so sick and tired of people sitting there ridiculing chastity and abstinence then touting aborting, contraceptives, and the like as feminine healthcare!
As a woman, my doctor has never said I need contraceptives to be healthy (quite the opposite, actually). And I’ve never used contraceptives OR abortion for healthcare or for anything to do with my reproduction system. I’ve found other, healthier ways of managing it.
I’m so tired of being told that women NEED abortions and they NEED contraceptives. We don’t NEED any of that. We NEED mutual respect by both males and females for each other, real HEALTHY solutions to problems, and an understanding and respect for the reproductive system and human life.
Also, adoption gets such a bad rap by so many on the pro-choice side, that even if there ARE happy adoption stories they act like it’s some weird anomaly (I happen to know several HAPPY adoption stories personally–both friends and family members). Maybe if we worked on the adoption industry and foster care to make it better some of the problems they mention would get better, but instead of trying to find good solutions they want to throw abortion and contraceptives at it. A bandaid might hide the wound, but the wound is still there until the real healing occurs.
We need REAL healing. Not the abortion/contraceptive “bandaids”.
@ Mother in Texas: About adoption: Why not make it the norm? When women go into hospitals to have babies, the babies are randomly assigned to the women who leave. Each woman leaves with another woman’s baby.
It’s not like carrying for 9 months and giving birth forms a bond between that particular mother and child and that breaking that bond injures both mother and child.
Yay, yet more views from celebrities that I don’t care about at all.
Of course,me constantly feeling the need to comment on not caring about these celebrities totally proves that i don’t. :)
Hi Del,
I’m with you, who are these people?
It reminds me of the old “I Love Lucy Show”. Lucy wants preferred seating so she informs the stadium attendant that IIIIIII….am married to Ricky Ricardo. The attendant responds, well IIIIII…..am married to Myrtle Schnickelbocher(or something close to that) and you still can’t sit here! Of course I’m paraphrasing as best as memory will allow!
Just because someone is famous doesn’t make them an expert on reproduction and abortion as healthcare. I was shocked at how many celebrities have actually had abortions because I used to believe it was the act of a poor broke woman. And I’ve never heard of any of these celebrities so who cares? Shut up and sing. You have plenty of money to feed and buy clothes for a kid. You just didn’t WANT the baby. Right Madonna Cher Brittany Lil Kim Kathy Najimy Whoopie? It’s all about being selfish and what you want. You put your career before the lives of your children.
Hi Denise you and I are both book readers and I have read plenty of autobiographys on celebrities. Marylin Monroe was rumored to have had at least 3. I recall you had heard 13. Cher was already rich and famous when she obtained multiple abortions as was Madonna. Id read Madonnas book Goddess and I believe shed had so many shed lost count. Id read at least 11. Even 2 from hubby Sean Penn. Brittanys had 3 and the latest was Lindsay Lohan who lied and said shed had an appendix removed. Reports surfaced that Lindsay was quite upset when the truth came out on a radio show that shed actually had an abortion. Her mom was quite upset and Lohan was angry with her mom for confirming it. Proof that some women value making a movie or missing a concert tour over the lives of their children.
Denise, what point are you trying to make? Are you against adoption? I know lots of happy adoption stories! My grandfather was adopted, he adopted two girls (my aunts), my sister had adopted four children, etc. These children had no parents. These are a mix of domestic and international adoption. There are interracial adoptions in the mix.
Are you saying that a woman does form a bond with her unborn baby and therefore adoption is wrong? Or are you saying that no bond is formed? If you are saying that there is no bond formed, then you are out of your mind. I’m going to assume you meant that there IS a bond formed. So the alternative to adoption is abortion? Better to kill your baby (and break the bond) than to allow a family to adopt your baby (and actually in a lot of cases continue to see your baby)? Just spell it out please. Your sarcasm gets in the way of clarity.
And you’re obviously not saying that we should be in a collective-socialist type society in which no one is allowed to care for their biological child. You seem to be saying that since this is not the case, then adoption is bad. Look, breastmilk is best for babies. [I won’t tolerate any argument against this because there are only a million studies proving it.] BUT, if a woman is unable to breastfeed her baby because she’s had breast surgery or has HIV/AIDS or if the baby is being cared for by the father or someone else because the mother has died, then obviously you give the baby formula. Formula is obviously not as good as breastmilk, but it’s better than saying “Oh, breastmilk is the only way to go – since we don’t have it we’ll just let the baby starve or kill him instead.” Ideally all children would be cared for by their own parents, but since we have situations in which parents are abusive, in jail, dead or absent for some other reason, we have adoption as the next-best loving alternative.
I should say that Lohans mother was upset with her daughter for aborting. If Lindsay is pro choice then why would she care that people found out?
Heather says:
May 24, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Hi Denise you and I are both book readers and I have read plenty of autobiographys on celebrities. Marylin Monroe was rumored to have had at least 3. I recall you had heard 13. Cher was already rich and famous when she obtained multiple abortions as was Madonna. Id read Madonnas book Goddess and I believe shed had so many shed lost count. Id read at least 11. Even 2 from hubby Sean Penn. Brittanys had 3 and the latest was Lindsay Lohan who lied and said shed had an appendix removed. Reports surfaced that Lindsay was quite upset when the truth came out on a radio show that shed actually had an abortion. Her mom was quite upset and Lohan was angry with her mom for confirming it. Proof that some women value making a movie or missing a concert tour over the lives of their children.
(Denise) Making a movie or a concert tour aren’t necessarily related to abortion. I did indeed read in “Goddess” that Marilyn Monroe had undergone 13 abortions. I hope that was exaggerated. However, another bio said the autopsy showed “a history of multiple abortion” so she did indeed have some.
Heather, the fact that these woman have had abortions doesn’t show some automatic connection between their aborting and their “careers.” IMO, we would have more housewives if that occupation was not so economically insecure and risky. I would like to see more emphasis on the domestic sphere and greater appreciation for “women’s work” that is outside the paid labor market. However, I don’t see any connection with abortion.
I read a bio of Lillian Hellman. She had one abortion (to my knowledge).
Hollywood sexpot Barbara Payton said in her memoirs that when she got pregnant, “I considered suicide but never abortion.”
Helen Gurley Brown never had an abortion and was never pregnant.
Unfortunately, famous women appear to fall into 3 camps:
1) Lifelong celibates
2) Lifelong lesbians
3) Those who have had abortions. : (
<<
Mat. Anna says:
May 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Denise, what point are you trying to make? Are you against adoption?>>
(Denise) No, I am not against adoption. It might be necessary in some cases.
I know lots of happy adoption stories! My grandfather was adopted, he adopted two girls (my aunts), my sister had adopted four children, etc. These children had no parents. These are a mix of domestic and international adoption. There are interracial adoptions in the mix. Are you saying that a woman does form a bond with her unborn baby and therefore adoption is wrong? Or are you saying that no bond is formed? If you are saying that there is no bond formed, then you are out of your mind. I’m going to assume you meant that there IS a bond formed. So the alternative to adoption is abortion? Better to kill your baby (and break the bond) than to allow a family to adopt your baby (and actually in a lot of cases continue to see your baby)? Just spell it out please. Your sarcasm gets in the way of clarity.
(Denise) Almost everybody recognizes that the birthmother is harmed by placing her baby for adoption. They recognize this because she is conscious. It seems to me that the bond goes both ways. Even though the baby is pre-conscious, the baby is attached to the body in which he or she grew and out of which he or she came. Adoptive mother Nancy Verrier has written, “Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child” about this. She isn’t against adoption. She believes it is important to recognize that adoption wounds the child.
<<And you’re obviously not saying that we should be in a collective-socialist type society in which no one is allowed to care for their biological child. You seem to be saying that since this is not the case, then adoption is bad.>>
(Denise) I’m not saying adoption is bad. I’m saying adoption automatically has certain problems. Look up “The Forensics of Adoption” to find out its strong statistical link to specific horrors. I can’t get more specific because Carla considers mentioning negative facts associated with adoption to be “ranting.” But you can google those things.
There are negative facts associated with single motherhood. I don’t know if Carla thinks mentioning them is “ranting” or not. However, it seems to be a premise here that we must “shush” facts that point to problems with adoption, young motherhood, or single motherhood for fear of encouraging abortion.
<<Look, breastmilk is best for babies. [I won’t tolerate any argument against this because there are only a million studies proving it.] BUT, if a woman is unable to breastfeed her baby because she’s had breast surgery or has HIV/AIDS or if the baby is being cared for by the father or someone else because the mother has died, then obviously you give the baby formula. Formula is obviously not as good as breastmilk, but it’s better than saying “Oh, breastmilk is the only way to go – since we don’t have it we’ll just let the baby starve or kill him instead.” Ideally all children would be cared for by their own parents, but since we have situations in which parents are abusive, in jail, dead or absent for some other reason, we have adoption as the next-best loving alternative.>>
(Denise) As I said, adoption is sometimes necessary. For example, there will always be women who will die in childbirth. There will always be mothers who die or get killed when the child is young. There are moms in prison and mental hospitals and moms who are too handicapped to care for a child.
I don’t think adoption should be PUSHED. I’m all for its existing.
Some people have also suggested that “guardianship” might often be better than adoption. A young, impoverished mother and her baby are taken in by an older, affluent, childless couple. The childless couple get to express their maternal and paternal yearnings with both the mom and the baby.
I’ve only heard of Stanley Tucci, and what has he done lately?
Sounds like more actors with nothing to do who can’t stand being out of the limelight.
Like it’s going to help telling Obama to get going on this. No President has been more pro-abortion than him. What President has ever tried to force the providing of contraceptive and abortive medications on businesses, including church institutions.
If these poor actors can’t find anything to do to make themselves look useful, they might want to come up with a better cause than this.
As for reproductive rights, I don’t want to hear about them until I hear an adequate answer to the question: what about the rights of the baby, who seems to be just a bit involved in reproduction?
Mat Anna,
When engaging with Denise Noe please be aware she is only here to continually harp on the same topics and lead others down the same paths by asking the same questions.
In a word……troll.
Yes. You rant Denise.
After reading thousands of your comments which basically say the same things(adoptive children=serial killers, chaperoned dating, sex that doesn’t lead to pregnancy, too many details of your own sex life and your penpal prison rapists….)I have come to that conclusion.
And I act accordingly.
And typing I HATE abortion every once in awhile hardly makes the case that you are prolife.
Sorry, adoption is a touchy subject for me. I absolutely adore my adopted niece and nephews and know what a wonderful family my sister and her husband have put together.
Absolutely Mat. Anna!!!
We all know those that have adopted precious little
ones!!
I try to delete most of Denise’s stuff. It gets a bit tedious.
I would far rather a mother give her child the opportunity to make that life for his or herself by placing him/her up for adoption than I would the mother pay to have that child ripped apart in utero.
Reason enough to push adoption when the alternative is death.
MaryRose says:
May 25, 2013 at 11:14 am
I would far rather a mother give her child the opportunity to make that life for his or herself by placing him/her up for adoption than I would the mother pay to have that child ripped apart in utero. Reason enough to push adoption when the alternative is death.
(Denise) I recall a debate in which an abortion criminalizer said, “It’s not just legal or illegal abortion. There’s adoption.”
I say, “It’s not just abortion or adoption. We must work to ensure that the woman who become pregnant are those who want to have babies.”
There might always be adoption in some form or another. However, there will never be an adoption-to-the-rescue situation in which over a million girls and women every year have babies and place them for adoption. People will never see an obviously pregnant woman and say, “Hi. Are you keeping this one or placing for adoption?’
Abortion is a false choice. We have to prevent pregnancies in those unwilling or unable to carry to term and have babies.
Someone once asked me what I would say to a woman who was adamant that she would not raise. She would either abort or place for adoption. What would I encourage her to do? I would try to persuade her to have the baby and place the baby for adoption. However, I would want her to know about the problems associated with adoption.
The way I would do this is by showing her pictures of the embryo or fetus at her stage of pregnancy and explaining precisely what an abortion would do.
People involved with adoption should look into both “Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child” by Nancy Verrier and “The Forensics of Adoption” so that they will be aware of the problems. There are “anti-life” associations with adoption that you can google.
Denise, I’m just saying that your opposition to adoption isn’t very constructive. How can we work to institute better programs to help adoptive parents and adopted children?
Additionally, “preventing pregnancy” needn’t always be the answer. How about supporting new mothers in other ways? Making use of great charities like Catholic Charities and Birthright to help women to keep their babies when they want to do so.
I’m fully in support of increased info on human development. This is my latest “weapon” in my prolife arsenal.
MaryRose says:
May 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Denise, I’m just saying that your opposition to adoption isn’t very constructive.>>
(Denise) I’m not opposed to adoption. Pointing out that something is connected with things that are strongly “anti-life” doesn’t mean I’m “opposed” to it. Again, let’s look at single motherhood. Should the struggle to decrease abortion mean that we must be silent on negative things that are statistically linked to single motherhood?
The same may be asked of very young motherhood. You don’t want a 12-year-old pregnant girl to abort. Must we therefore pretend that there are no special problems or negative statistical links associated with being born to a very young mother?
How can we work to institute better programs to help adoptive parents and adopted children?>>
(Denise) I guess the first place to start is to ensure that “open” adoption is legally enforceable. Currently, the adoptive parents can legally close an adoption at their discretion. Making “open-ness” legally enforceable could be helpful.
We can also try to promote the “guardianship” practice in which a childless couple “parents” BOTH the mother and the newborn.
A<<dditionally, “preventing pregnancy” needn’t always be the answer. How about supporting new mothers in other ways? Making use of great charities like Catholic Charities and Birthright to help women to keep their babies when they want to do so.>>
(Denise) I support those groups and the good work they do. However, priority must be given to preventing pregnancies among those women who are unable or unwilling to carry to term and give birth. ”Better safe than sorry.” ”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” <<I’m fully in support of increased info on human development. This is my latest “weapon” in my prolife arsenal.>>
(Denise) I’ve heard that about 80% of pregnant woman who are shown a sonogram decide to carry to term. A girl or woman who knows what the embryo or fetus looks like at her stage of development will often decide to carry to term.
Denise,
I see no point in me answering you since others took the words right out of my mouth (so to speak).
God bless.
Should “open” adoption be legally enforceable?
On some websites,, birthmothers have complained that open adoptions were closed by the adoptive parents and that the birthmothers had no legal recourse to make them open them up again.
Instead of attacking me, why not attack laws that make the open-ness of adoption subject to the whims of the adoptive parents?
Carla says:
May 25, 2013 at 11:07 am
Absolutely Mat. Anna!!!
We all know those that have adopted precious littleones!!
(Denise) We all know little ones growing up healthy and happy in the homes of moms who were never married.
Does that make it hateful to point out that being raised in a single mom home has statistical links to negatives?
Would it be ranting to suggest a baby has a better chance if born to a married couple?
“Sorry, adoption is a touchy subject for me. I absolutely adore my adopted niece and nephews and know what a wonderful family my sister and her husband have put together.”
Then never engage Denise. She has all these personal crazy obsessions that she thinks represent reality and then argues for policies that would basically treat the whole world as if it shared her hangups (and the hangups of her twisted friends and pen pals). She will only focus on a statistically meaningless negative of adoption (that adoptees might become serial killers – I SO wish I was kidding) and wants to base policy on that. Whenever you see anything about adoption on this site (and sometimes on random unrelated posts, cause that’s just the way she trolls) just sit back and wait – there will be a post from her. Like a moth to a flame.
Whatever problems are statistically associated with the children of single moms and adoptive parents, I am willing to accept them.
All I know is that nearly 100% of aborted children are murdered, and the few who survive the abortion are almost all murdered, and a statistical portion of the aborting mothers also die unnaturally. I am willing to take whatever risks come with helping those women and their children to survive. The net result will be saving millions of lives.
Sinead O’Connor also had an abortion and this was also after she was famous.
I didnt know about Brittany Spears though. I thought she was supposed to be conservative.
Thats why I get tired of prolifers painting women who have abortions as innocent victims. Many just dont want to be bothered.”
I think adoption is wonderful. It gives children who would otherwise grow up in neglectful or abusive homes, a better chance at life. I know people everywhere on the political spectrum who have adopted. They wanted to be parents badly. Some of them even adopted harder to place children and get even more respect from me. Even though I am one of those evil pro-choice people I have nothing but respect for a woman who chooses not to terminate but realizes she can’t raise the child but others can.
And yet, you’d be fine if that woman DID choose “to terminate” and the child died. Odd.
Evil pro choice people ….yep you summed that up well!
Tenn says:
May 26, 2013 at 1:53 am
I think adoption is wonderful. It gives children who would otherwise grow up in neglectful or abusive homes, a better chance at life. I know people everywhere on the political spectrum who have adopted. They wanted to be parents badly. Some of them even adopted harder to place children and get even more respect from me. Even though I am one of those evil pro-choice people I have nothing but respect for a woman who chooses not to terminate but realizes she can’t raise the child but others can.
(Denise) Tenn, I think adoption CAN be wonderful. It remains true that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers. It is also true that they are 15 times more likely to kill one or both parents than other people.
Why? Here are my guesses: a baby may form a connection in the womb. When separated from the body in which he or she grew and out of which he or she came, that baby inevitably suffers a wound, as adoptive mother Nancy Verrier calls it, a “Primal Wound.”
Most people recognize that a birthmother is traumatized when she places for adoption. They need to recognize that the baby is traumatized as well.
Adoptees by definition have a kind of split identity. This split identity leads to their over-representation as serial murderers.
Why are they more likely to kill a parent? There is something to be said for biology. The absence of a biological connection means that they are not killing their own DNA or flesh and blood. Moreover, when most people kill a mom, they have no mom. Parricide Marlene Olive killed her adoptive parents — and spoke of finding “my Mom” after being released from a juvenile detention center.
I know, I know, “Wound the baby, don’t kill the baby.” “Traumatize, don’t kill.”
How about the best instead of 2nd best? How about making sure pregnancies occur among women who want to have and raise babies?
Denise,
Give me a break. Should we also outlaw everything else that could increase your risk of crime later in life? I’m sure we can come up with studies ‘proving’ that exposure to violent video games and films make you more likely to end up in jail. Let’s illegalize them. Also, I’m pretty sure we could get together some evidence linking veterans to an increased risk of suicide and crime. Maybe we should disband all US military forces. I believe I can track down some studies tieing the crime rate and the poverty rate, so let’s get rid of all those poor people. In fact, let’s illegalize poor people having babies, okay?
Yes, my comment is ridiculous. Intentionally. Because what you said more or less amounts to, ‘if you’re adopted you might just become a serial killer so adoption is a bad option to encourage.’ and expect a serious response.
@ MaryRose: I never indicated that the statistical links between adoption and serial murder or the statistical links between adoption and the murders of adoptive parents mean that adoption should be banned. I think people who try to encourage adoption should be aware of these links as should people who might get involved with adoption.
Denise,
Your answers to how we can help adoptive children amounted to “don’t worry so much about that but focus on women who are getting pregnant.” It’s not that I think that it isn’t important to focus on women who aren’t ready for pregnancy-I’m all about changing the way we view sex and BC in our world, and redefining sex and pregnancy as interrelated again. I just think that we could also focus some energy on making the transition a lot easier for adoptive parents and adopted children. Also, I think there could be more programs available to assist those who were adopted as children and are now having difficulties with the concept as adults.
Your comments amount to, “adoption screws up kids, so let’s make every pregnancy wanted instead” which is a pretty sentiment but sounds an awful lot like a PP motto.
@ MaryRose: I very strongly favor open adoptions whenever possible. I also very strongly favor making “open-ness” legally enforceable. In many states, an open adoption can be closed if the birthparents want it closed. One website compared open adoption to a lovely box of candies — that is empty inside.
I also support “guardianship.” This is a system in which the mother and baby are taken in by an older, more affluent childless couple. The couple acts as “guardians” for both mom and baby. Thus, the relationship between mom and baby isn’t ruptured.
CHILLING> anyone who tells me my rights to my body should include child slaughter — is sick. These are all blind liberals so it really doesn’t surprise me.
Vip celebrities? Who are they?