Pro-lifers shut down anti-personhood rally
Shelby Knox is a pro-abort activist starlet being called by some “the next Gloria Steinem.”
Earlier this week Knox flew to the Colorado to help NARAL Colorado attempt to squelch votes for the Personhood Amendment 62 campaign. Yesterday Knox participated in a No on 62 rally in Colorado Springs. Afterward she tweeted…
… and posted this positive albeit unimpressive photo…
Not so fast, little Ms. Gloria wannabe. Here’s the other half of the story.
Taking a page from pro-aborts, who like to infiltrate our rallies, pro-lifers showed up at theirs yesterday. In fact, just as many pro-lifers came as pro-aborts, about 30-40 each.
Our side vocalized their support for A62 throughout their staged PR stunt. Someone from the other side started shouting from the gazebo, “You can’t be here!” Oh, really? First Amendment anyone?
Then pro-aborts made the mistake of inviting the audience to sign their “No on 62” sign. Our people thought sure, and started up to the gazebo. The first started to write, “Don’t Kill Babies,” but had the Sharpie jerked out of his hand at “K~.”
When our side eventually took over the stage…
… the pro-aborts had to shut down their event.
And that’s the rest of the story that Shelby neglected to mention to her peeps.
No justice no peace.
In addition, because our side showed up, it got equal news time. Watch the Channel 13 video. Great pro-life talking points by A62’s Keith Mason were included in the print version:
“What Amendment 62 is doing is giving constitutional and legal rights to a woman’s fertilized egg….” said Fofi Mendez, the Campaign Director for No On 62….
“I think it’s important to note with the term fertilized egg, that’s the same thing as using the N word for an African American,” said Mason. “Because it’s a dehumanizing term and it’s not based in science. The term would be a zygote, or an embryo, speaking of a unique individual.”…
“It’s a bad law,” said Mason, referring to Roe v. Wade. “It was not based in reason. They ignored the concept of the pre-born child being a person.”…
“I think that the majority of even the people that support 62 see a problem with 97% of abortions, 20,000 every year in the state of CO, happening for convenience, and abortion actually being used as birth control,” said Mason.
“I’m sort of speechless,” said Mendez, in response to Mason’s suggestion that abortion is used as birth control. “I’m not really sure exactly what to say, other than I do believe that there are many reasons why a woman may choose an abortion. It may be because she’s been raped, or it may be because her life is endangered.”
One other point. I wrote September 21 that A62 supporters had filed a lawsuit to block the state from distributing a voter guide called the Blue Book, which contains disinformation about A62.
Yesterday a judge agreed to hear the merits of the lawsuit, only the 2nd such lawsuit to receive a state hearing. All others have been immediately dismissed. It will be scheduled sometime next week.
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.
Bob Enyart is correct- their signs are very ugly, and our signs are very aesthetically pleasing.
Jill, you’ve been called an “anti-choice misogynist” on this person’s blog. Yes, just because we don’t believe in killing unborn females and males, we hate ourselves, our daughters, mothers, and sisters. Okay, whatever.
From PP Affiliates of NJ: The quickest way to reduce the number of abortions in America is to increase the availability of contraception.
We know that half of all abortions occur because a woman’s birth control failed. If that’s not abortion as birth-control, then what is it? Why is Fofi Mendez speechless?
The National Abortion Federation says under MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control. Answer: If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year – 30 or more during her lifetime.
Funny they toss in the word primary. So when the primary method of the Pill fails, what then is the secondary method of birth control?
In regards to the above post, if there’s nothing objectionable about abortion, why isnt it acceptable to use it as a means of birth control?
Cranky Catholic wrote:
The National Abortion Federation says under MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control. Answer: If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year – 30 or more during her lifetime.
Excellent, Cranky.
To the NAF:
Women are not fertile during every cycle!! This quote from the NAF just goes to show how the abortion industry distorts the truth when it comes to women’s fertility. They use scare tactics such as this – that a woman could be swimming in babies by the end of her productive years – and then, to promote a false sense of security, they tell women that a condom or other artificial birth control will allow women to have sex virtually whenever they want and won’t have to “worry” about pregnancy. Therefore the choice between pregnancy or abortion become a truly “last resort” in the minds of many women instead of the very common occurrance that it is. People will support so-called “abortion rights” (killing rights) and the money flows into the abortion industry’s and pharmaceutical companies’ coffers.
It’s all based on lies, lies, lies – preying on the vulnerable. When will pro-aborts like Knox realize that they are wasting their lives and the lives of future children by promoting the cause?
How would they know that “a typical woman” would get pregnant two or three times a year if abortion was used as a primary method of birth control? How would you even begin to compute that?
First you’d have to figure out how many women aren’t going to get pregnant, period – because they aren’t having sex with men, because they’re past menopause, because they’re infertile, because their husband or partner is infertile. Once you’ve got it down to all the women who could possibly get prenant within any given year, you’ve got loads of unpredictable circumstances that are impossible to know in data. Maybe “Kendra” could have gotten pregnant two or three times a year if using abortion as a primary method of birth control – but her husband “Tyler” was on a business trip while she was ovulating, or Tyler’s sperm just weren’t up to the task one month, or Kendra and Tyler were planning to have sex until they realized their basement was flooding. There’s no way to calculate all the real-world reasons a fertile woman having sex with a fertile man may or may not get pregnant while ovulating in any given month.
Marauder, not to mention that a woman may wait until later in her pregnancy to abort, so how could you compute that? If she kills her child in the 20th week, she wouldn’t get pregnant as often that year than if she killed her child in the 9th week.
And talk about lack of science! A “fertilized egg” exists for a nanosecond: the sperm’s “head” literally explodes and the DNA is cast into the cell where it immediately joins the mother’s contribution of DNA, and begins the process cell division and growth. A “fertlized egg” doesn’t hang out for like a week, drinking mint juleps, and waiting for the start signal to come from outside. Science, pro-aborts, it’s called science.
My pet unscience peeve is the pro-abort idea that the mother determines whether the baby is alive or not. In order for something to be factually true, it must always be true. 2 + 2 always equals 4. The mother doesn’t decide suddenly that 4 is inconvenient so today it will equal 3. If the mother decides life, then are they trying to convince us that a 13 year old girl has the ultimate power in the universe? Can she also decide whether plants or animals are alive? Maybe she should decide the rotation of the planets, or their orbit around the sun, I mean as long as she’s in control of the laws of nature…
So what would Fofi Medez consider to be abortion used as birth-control?
A “fertlized egg” doesn’t hang out for like a week, drinking mint juleps, and waiting for the start signal to come from outside. Science, pro-aborts, it’s called science.
LOL! This made me laugh. :D
This event was AMAZING!! Funny note, the security guard from Planned Parenthood in Denver was their photographer for this event. When They invited EVERYONE to come up and sign the board, Bob gladly walked up with all his signs and so did my daughter. Mr. Security guard thought he was still in Kansas and went up to try to manhandle the Pro Lifers – NO CAN DO Mr. Security Guard! Then Mr. ACLU was there trying to push his weight around, HA! Funny how the ACLU doesn’t think WE have the right to voice our opinions. He was shut down as well…
GOD is good and this event proved it time and time again.
“Bob Enyart is correct- their signs are very ugly, and our signs are very aesthetically pleasing.”
not only that, their signs are unimaginative, boring and sooooo 1960’s.
Guess all the creative proaborts were….aborted.
How do you reconcile ‘Oh, really? First Amendment anyone?’ with ‘When our side eventually took over the stage…’?
Thanks be to God for these people who step out to Defend Life! You are awesome in your witness.
May Amendment 62 pass!
Gloria who?
cranium: easy. First Amendment means we get to say our piece on the stage too! ;)
Referring to a child, made in the image of GOD, as a fertilized egg is truly cold hearted. Hows this for a retort? If they are just ” fertilized eggs” then you probably wouldn’t mind having a couple over-easy for breakfast. YES on #62. Personhood 4 LIFE chsmith aguilar co
I hope the pro-abort will come to more of our events now!
Why do I get the feeling you’d be screaming bloody murder (okay, bad metaphor, that’s what you already do; how about “breathing fire” instead) if one of your own rallies was infiltrated and undermined like this? Where’s the respect for the political process and civic participation? This just reinforces my belief that if people like you had their way, the country would be a fascist theocracy.
Joan, when my friends interrupted their pro-death rally, that is a wonderful and God-honoring thing, defending the helpless and the innocent from oppression and bloody murder, speaking the truth to the lost (all of this peacefully and legally!)
If they interrupt our pro-life, pro-baby event by coming in and advocating the “legal” murder of babies, that is a heinous and evil thing to do. Legal, in a public setting, like this was? Yes. Rude? Yes. And pure evil. Would we be upset? Of course we would. Would you be mad if someone came to the sidewalk in front of your house and advocating killing your family members? Legal, yes. Peaceful, yes. Rude, yes. And yet, you’d be mad. Because what they’re advocating would be evil. Defending babies from being murdered, preaching that they have a right to live, that is good and wonderful.
Hypocritical? God help us, are you seriously saying that is hypocritical? That’s not even apples and oranges. That is apples and atom bombs. What an utterly amoral thing to suggest. Nobody here advocates a theocracy. You falsely accuse others here, and you need to repent of that.
Got it. You don’t care about respecting the American tradition of ideological pluralism, you just want to sabotage and suppress the political activity of people that disagree with you, because it is a “God-honoring” thing to do. Huh, where else have I seen people using “God’s will” as an excuse to attack and disrupt the lives of “heathens” lately… but of course, you don’t want a theocracy. Perish the thought.
Joan, ideological pluralism is great when it comes to letting everyone have their say.
But, when someone wants to kill 1 1/2 million children a year by burning them to death, ripping their limbs off or vaccuming them up a hose, politeness may sometimes go out the window (albeit still peacefully and legally, as in this case)!
With 1.6 million innocent lives killed each year, are you honestly this upset about a few individuals peacefully and legally accepting an INVITATION to come up to the podium in a public place to speak in a public forum at a political event? My gosh, free speech rights were protected in the Constitution for political speech, specifically. And you are upset over “the tradition of ideological pluralism.”
Well, excuse us, if a bunch of people on your side are ripping to shreds some of the people on our side, in a bloody holocaust. So much for your “respect.” Who is disrupting whose lives? When the baby-killers start respecting the unborn children they want to kill, you might see more “respect” from us.
“Disrupting lives” indeed. You must be joking. You don’t know the meaning of the term.
Does 62 protect children with down syndrome?
How often have posts from so-called “pro-choice” people said they believe the 10% of woman who knowingly give life to a down syndrome baby are being selfish because the child will be a “burden on taxpayers?”
How long before people like that get mandatory screening laws pushed?
Am I way off base thinking that is possible? Or have I just seen Gattaca too many times?
Fishydude, I’m not sure I understand your question.
I can tell you that the whole point of Amendment 62 is wonderfully simple. A person ia a person is a person. Nobody has the right to legally kill another innocent person, intentionally.
Should it be legal to kill a fully-born Down Syndrome child? Absolutely, positively not; no way. Well, a human being is fully a unique, living person all their own (not part of the mother’s body) from the moment of conception. 23 + 23 = 46 chromosomes, a unique DNA, often a different gender from the mother, often a different blood type from the mother, so it is definitely not the mother’s body.
Therefore, “from the beginning of biological development” (a term actually used by the scientific and medical community, unlike “fertilized egg” which has no basis in science), from that beginning moment this is a real person with a fundamental right to life.
So, does 62 protect children with Down Syndrome from being killed for the crime of their illness? Absolutely! Morally and legally, there must be no difference between a newly-conceived zygote and a fully-born child. They are both unique, living human beings with their own right to life, regardless of whether that child’s father is a rapist, regardless if the child has an illness or a birth defect, etc. You don’t kill a fully-born child because of a birth defect. You do whatever you can, and sometimes that’s a lot, but sometimes it’s not much, so you love that child to the end, no matter how soon that end comes, and the rest is in God’s hands for that precious baby.
I hope this comes close to answering your question, good neighbor. God bless.
You’ve completely proved my point, Jamie. In your insulated little world, you’re right and everyone else is wrong and so your views are held to a completely different standard. You don’t have to acknowledge that statements like “morally and legally, there must be no difference between a newly-conceived zygote and a fully-born child” squarely place you in an extremely small minority of Americans, and you don’t have to respect the rights of people who disagree with you to peaceably assemble, because they are evil, and you are doing what God wants. Your mindset is identical to the mindset of religious extremists past and present, and with your ability to justify the means by the end, there is no conceivable self-limit on what you would be willing to do for the “cause”. This thinking is the first step down the path of political violence, and if you are the rule and not the exception, I fear that the “pro-life” movement is being pulled towards the margins by extremists who are getting impatient with their lack of success through traditional, peaceful means.
Hi Joan/Devo,
So you come here to a prolife blog to call those you disagree with extremists?
How very extreme of you!
Why is it that proaborts can push their agenda of abortion to the extent of infants being born alive after abortion being denied care(infanticide)and they are NOT encouraged to tone it down?
Why must those that err on the side of life continually be admonished to “compromise??”
Abortion hurt me and killed my first child. I will never tone it down, compromise or shut up about that!!!
Carla – Abortion did not hurt you, you hurt you. The doctor didn’t come to your house and hold you down, you went into the clinic of your own free will. Now you would strip that free will from others to make the same choice you made. Stop projecting your perceived guilt on others. YOU DECIDED TO HAVE YOUR ABORTION. This type of BS takes away from the grief that parents who really lost their children feel every day. My cousin was hit by a car at 16yo, that was 25 years ago and my aunt still cries if you mention his name within earshot.
I have as much sympathy for you as I do for a drunk driver who drives off a cliff doing 90mph. He choose to get drunk, he choose to drive, he choose to speed, and then he lived with the consequences for about 30 seconds.
You Carla made the choice to have sex, you made the choice not to use enough birth control, and you made the choice to terminate your pregnancy. Stop blaming everyone else for YOUR choice. If you want to help women who are having a hard time dealing with their own choice they made than more power to you but take responsibility for your own decisions.
Abortion did not hurt you, YOU HURT YOU and you still are…
Very interesting commentary, MR/Ms Biggz. Very interesting because you’re right, women do have responsibility over their own decisions and must own them, however, it’s interesting to note how our society is raising the women who make these decisions with the movies, commercials and series that are full of the FREE Love message that Planned Parenthood has pushed for the last 40 yrs with OUR tax payer dollars. The disgusting NARAL and NOW groups who promote irresponsible lifestyles and the only answer they can give these women is to kill their child to continue with the same lifestyles and immoral acts that got them to that very situation! And the men, who aren’t READY, are too married and forgot to tell her, are too busy building their careers or finishing school, but not too busy to use, abuse and throw away their women along with their children in the process. The men who are such cowards they can’t stand up and say, I want to be responsible since that child needed two people of the opposite sex to create her/him. ALL of these situations that have created a box for a woman to wollow in with no choice and no support except abortion and then when that woman realizes the LIES she was fed all of those years and mourns the loss of the child that she comes to recognize as human, YOU have the nerve to blame her and not the system that created her and then left her to her own devices!! BIGGz, it’s about time that people like you stop pushing the agenda and the problem and start becoming part of the solution…
“I have as much sympathy for you as I do for a drunk driver who drives off a cliff doing 90mph. He choose to get drunk, he choose to drive, he choose to speed, and then he lived with the consequences for about 30 seconds.”
Have I missed something or did our country recently legalize drunk driving and driving 90mph?
Otherwise, I’m glad to see you finally agree with us Biggz that it is time abortion becomes illegal. It is very destructive to the mothers and very deadly to the children.
Carla, have I told you lately you’re my hero? God Bless You!
Biggz,
You simply do not understand. That’s ok with me. Put a sock in it about how it all came down in my life. So you know I wasn’t on birth control? So you know I willingly had sex? So you know I made a “fully informed decision?” Huh Biggz? You were there right?? You know how it all happened right?? I have never told anyone the circumstances of my pregnancy on this board and I have been here for three years. I don’t need your sympathy, Biggz. You stand in stark contrast to those that love me without question here and know my abortion story and do not judge me. I better not let my husband see your comments to his wife. He has walked this walk with me for 20 years and KNOWS how abortion has affected me. He would have some harsh words for you, dear Biggz. I would probably have to delete his comments. :)
I am not here for you.
I am here for the thousands of women that are struggling and suffering after their abortions. I am here to tell them they are not alone and they can have a voice and they can find healing.
Ah, Praxedes. Thank you.
I see what I do as no different than a mother who lost a child to something horrifying and is now trying to educate others. There is great joy in what I do. Although you seem to think I don’t take responsibility for what I’ve done or that I am having a big pity party. HA
I think you feel threatened by me and women like me. The women that are not afraid to say what abortion is really like and how it has devastated them in so many ways. The women I know are going to take abortion down to its knees, Biggz. We know the truth.
Did I already tell you to put a sock in it?? Maybe I did. If I didn’t, put a sock in it.
Yo Biggz!!
I guess the burning question is this.
Why do you go ballistic every time I talk about my abortion??
Is there one in your past? Paid for one? Brought your sister, daughter, friend, girlfriend or you wife for one? Pressured, coerced or forced someone to have an abortion? Do you perform them? There is a REASON you have to deny the reality of abortion, Biggz. That is your problem, not mine.
The good news? There is healing for you as well!!