Catholic church leaves abortion crosses up in front of polling place

I love Father Mallick. He’s my kind of pastor. From timescall.com, November 5:

Boulder County voters whose polling place is Sacred Heart of Mary Catholic Church on South Boulder Road can expect to walk past an anti-abortion display – including thousands of crosses representing aborted fetuses – when they go to cast their ballots Tuesday.

County election officials said the display does not appear to violate any rules for polling places, but they will allow voters assigned to Sacred Heart of Mary to vote elsewhere Tuesday – and the county will no longer use the church as a polling place in future elections.

“Our concern is that people are going to feel a sense of conflict with regard to voting at this church,” said Molly Tayer, Boulder County’s deputy clerk and election coordinator.

Tayer said a church representative initially told the clerk’s office that the display, erected in October for Respect Life Month, would be taken down the first weekend in November. According to Tayer, that person called back on Friday to say that, “Father has elected to keep it up.”

The Rev. Marcus Mallick is the priest at Sacred Heart of Mary. Church representatives on Monday referred questions to the Archdiocese of Denver, where a spokeswoman said the display is not meant to influence voters, but to continue a ministry that reaches out to women considering abortion and those who have undergone abortions in the past.

“These are ‘Respect Life’ signs to bring awareness to the issue,” said Karna Swanson, the diocese’s spokeswoman. “The decision to keep them up was based on the success of that ministry.”

Swanson said she does not know how long the church – which made news in 2005 for hosting burial services for the cremated remains of aborted fetuses – will maintain the display. She also said that no one from the church spoke with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s Office between April, when the contract was signed to host the voting location, and late last week.

The display does not appear to violate any election rules against expressing political views at polling places, Boulder County’s Tayer said. It is on the church’s private property and is not explicitly political. It also lies outside the 100-foot buffer inside which no political signs or personal campaigning is allowed.

However, the Boulder County clerk’s office has received three complaints about the display being located outside a polling center.

Are these people just pro-abortion, or are they vampires?

[HT: RH Reality Check]

Obama’s worldview on women “echoes Playboy”

If Barack Obama really does think his ad’s messages are cool, he’s revealing more about the way he thinks of women than he may realize….

I mean, we’re worried about losing our jobs and borrowing money from China, and Obama responds with a sexually oriented ad, aimed at women, joking about how “doing it” with him is “amazing.”

This attitude goes beyond the Lena Dunham ad. Take a gander at the Obama campaign’s “women’s issues” page; it’s almost entirely about birth control and abortion…..

It’s ironic that the worldview of Obama, who calls himself a Christian, so closely echoes that of the Playboy Foundation, which, like the president, has always gotten enthusiastically behind free birth control and abortion on demand. We know why Playboy does it — the organization views women as sex objects. Birth control removes the last argument women might offer against pressure to engage in sex with “a great guy” who claims to “understand women.” And abortion turns women into REUSABLE sex objects. But Mr. President — what’s your excuse?…

That’s why, when I go to the polling station in a few days and pull back the curtain, like Lena Dunham, I’m going to vote for the candidate who really cares about and understands women. News flash: It won’t be anyone who views women as sex objects — or sells himself as one.

~ Anne Morse, BreakPoint, October 30

Associated Press poll: What gender gap?

A friend forwarded me a media advisory yesterday that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards were holding a press call to demand that Mitt Romney pull his ad endorsing Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock following his statement upholding the sanctity of life for children conceived in rape.

So I got on the call.

The schpeel was typical. Republicans are radically anti-choice. Republicans want to take away birth control coverage. “Mitt Romney threatens the future for women in America,” clamored Richards. “He and Richard Mourdock have pledged allegiance to the most extreme GOP platform in our lifetime, which would not only overturn Roe but also give rights to fertilized eggs.”

Richards said Romney would turn back the clock 40 years to the pre-Roe days, a new time regression, I noted. At other times she has said Romney would turn back the clock 50 years, and at still other times she has said Romney was stuck in a 70-yr-old time warp. So goes the Planned Parenthood fertility rights calendar.

But I digress.

Most interesting to me were the questions from reporters at the end. There were only a few. But they went somewhere unexpected, and they came from unexpected sources.

From a journalist at liberal Talking Points Memo: “What’s the thinking on the gender gap closing rather than expanding?”

And from a journalist at The Root, an online division of the Washington Post catering to African-Americans: “Why do you think this message hasn’t been gaining ground among women?”

The lame answer from a DNC spokesperson whose name I didn’t catch: “We had leads in both states and nationally, and demographics that were unsustainable. There was a gender gap 26-28 points that was never going to be sustainable. The natural contraction of these things shouldn’t be seen as anything but normal.”

I’ve been posting polls for months showing the “war on women” meme isn’t a Republican bra-burner. So shows the latest, currently spotlighted on Drudge, from the Associated Press. The new normal, I hope…

Those churning gender dynamics leave the presidential race still a virtual dead heat, with Romney favored by 47% of likely voters and Obama by 45%….

As the election nears, Romney has been playing down social issues and trying to project a more moderate stance on matters such as abortion in an effort to court female voters. The AP-GfK poll, taken Friday through Tuesday, shows Romney pulling even with Obama among women at 47-47 after lagging by 16 points a month earlier.

[Top photo via Drudge]

As women abandon Obama, watch for abortion groups to push panic button

The headline on Drudge this morning…

All the polls I’ve read since Democrats started the “war on women” meme back in February have shown it’s a loser.

The new USA Today/Gallup poll linked today on Drudge agrees:

As the presidential campaign heads into its final weeks, the survey of voters in 12 crucial swing states finds female voters much more engaged in the election and increasingly concerned about the deficit and debt issues that favor Romney. The Republican nominee has pulled within one point of the president among women who are likely voters, 48%-49%, and leads by 8 points among men.

That said, at least one other poll I’ve missed has given Obama a huge lead among women in the past, but that lead, Pew agrees, is gone.

But don’t get comfortable. There are three weeks left before the election. Abortion groups can do a lot of damage in that time. Their backs are against the wall. If they lose Obama, they lose A LOT. If they lose Obama they potentially lose contraception funding, funding for International abortion groups, and funding for Planned Parenthood on both the federal level and in states Obama has overruled. There’s also that ongoing federal investigation Obama won’t be able to meddle with.

Expect abortion groups to move now to desperation mode, when who knows what they will do. That said, all the money they promised to spend on tv ads and mailings should just about be spent.

War on women? More UK women than men favor abortion restrictions

There is indeed a gender divide on the abortion debate in Britain…. [O]f the 37% of Britons who favoured a lowering of the 24 week limit (34% supported the status quo) the majority were women. In total, twice as many women as men (49% as opposed to 24%) wanted to see a lower limit. There was also an interesting age difference: among the younger age group (18-24) support for a lower limit stood at 43%, whereas in the two older age groups it was 35%….

This gender distinction seems to be consistent. A… poll in March found an even more dramatic difference, with 35% of men favouring a reduction below 24 weeks and 59% of women doing so….

Pro-choice feminists… almost never acknowledge the perhaps counterintuitive fact that the majority of those who support their position on abortion time-limits are men, and the majority of those who want a reduction are women. Why are men more “feminist” than women, at least in this one area?

Women who favour further restrictions on abortion might well deny the assumption that a pro-choice position is a feminist one, claiming instead that a liberal abortion regime benefits men. If women have easy (and socially unstigmatised) access to abortion, then men may feel less responsibility for the women they get pregnant or for any resulting child.

Men are likely to feel less pressingly the physical and psychological consequences of abortion. So they will be only too happy to concede women’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and fear the implications for themselves of more legal restrictions.

Such a view is not unknown even in radical feminist circles. Catherine McKinnon once wrote that “abortion facilitates women’s heterosexual availability” and “frees male sexual aggression.”

~ Nelson Jones, pointing out how “the majority of those who want a reduction in abortion time-limits [in the UK] are women,” New Statesman, October 6

[Photo via New Statesman]

Poll: Abortion advocacy hurts Obama in swing states

Up on Drudge now is a link to a Washington Examiner story reporting the results of a new Susan B. Anthony List’s poll, which are:

  • A majority of swing voters (54%) are less likely to vote for President Obama after learning that he voted against a law to give equal treatment and constitutional protections to babies born alive after a failed abortion (35% much less likely).
  • After learning of President’s Obama’s record of opposing equal treatment and constitutional rights for babies born alive after a failed abortion, women (53%), independents (46%) and pro-choicers (43%) said they would be less likely to vote for the President.
  • By a margin of 2-to-1 (49%-25%), likely swing voters in battleground states say they are less likely to vote for President Obama based on his inclusion of taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare.
  • Swing voters overwhelmingly reject (69%) the HHS mandate that forces faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs.  Forty four percent of voters said they are much less likely to vote for the candidate who imposes such regulations.

The poll was conducted by the polling company inc./WomanTrend of likely voters in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin who were either undecided or are leaning toward Romney or Obama.

In other words, when Independents or leaners learn of Obama’s abortion record, they are repulsed. We must get the word out.

Read topline data is here (6 pages), SBA List’  analysis here (2 pages), and SBA List’s press release on the poll here.

Tomorrow SBA List will launch a $150,000 ad buy in Ohio, featuring both the Melissa Ohden ad as well as this brand new ad…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF-DEfCidXE[/youtube]

Obama takes Fluke on “war on women” road show; releases yet another pro-Planned Parenthood ad

An ABC headline today reports, “Obama to Stoke ‘War on Women’ Debate in Colorado,” confirming the president’s “return to the gender politics of earlier in the cycle,” as reported by Politico a few days ago.

Obama is upping the ante, taking Georgetown Law School grad Sandra Fluke on the road with him on a two-day campaign trek through Colorado. Rush Limbaugh infamously called (then retracted) Fluke a “slut” for testifying in Congress she thought she should get free contraceptive through her Catholic university’s insurance plan.

Obama also continues to further tie himself to Planned Parenthood. In addition to a television ad released over the weekend touting the United States’ largest abortion chain, the Obama campaign released a web ad yesterday, discussed here. This ad marked Obama’s fourth pitch for Planned Parenthood, free contraceptives, and “family planning services” in a month.  (Also see “Troubled” and “Women’s Choices”.)

It is fascinating to watch Obama promote Planned Parenthood to the extent that he is. He could certainly push the pro-contraception/abortion agenda without mentioning the abortion giant.

I go back to the fact that Planned Parenthood must be scoring well in his internal polls.

Or it could be that Planned Parenthood isn’t scoring so well in the polls, and Obama needs to raise its favorables so any advertising it does on his behalf gets a better response. Synergy.

But Planned Parenthood sure is a risky dance partner.

[Photo via Politico]

 

“War on Women” 2.0: Obama attacks Romney on Planned Parenthood

The Obama campaign launched a television ad over the weekend attacking Mitt Romney for attacking Planned Parenthood.

Airing in seven battleground states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia), the ad manages in 30 seconds to hit Romney on several liberal reproductive talking points.

The well-crafted piece starts with a pitchwoman assailing Romney for opposing contraceptives. One must read over what she is saying (see above right) to know the complaint is actually about Romney’s opposition to the Obamacare contraception mandate.

The ad swiftly moves on to brand Planned Parenthood as America’s seemingly sole contraception distribution chain and then slams Romney for promising to defund it. It ends with Romney’s “Planned Parenthood, I’ll get rid of that” comment without any context, making it appear Romney is out to destroy PP (I wish)….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YhDQJU1NlE[/youtube]

As CNN noted:

While once a supporter of abortion rights, Romney now says he believes life begins at conception and opposes abortion.

This marks the third commercial in the last month the Obama campaign has released targeting Romney on the issue, signaling the fierce competition between the two candidates over the crucial voting bloc of women.

A Fact checker called the ad “misleading.”

It is politically inexplicable that Obama would continue to hold Planned Parenthood so close with such abandon. Planned Parenthood is a powder keg. That it is the United States’ largest abortion provider is but one of PP’s controversies. Planned Parenthood has shown itself ugly in multiple undercover stings and is also under investigation in at least five states as well as the U.S. Congress.

In fact, were it not for Obama, PP would already be collapsing. He has delivered PP a cash cow via Obamacare. And if a state tries to defund PP, Obama either sues the state or goes around it to fund PP with federal dollars. Obama went so far as to threaten to hold up the entire U.S. budget to keep PP in it.

It is no wonder PP CEO Cecile Richards sounded a bit like Marilyn Monroe in an August 4 tweet…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SLSlSmW74[/youtube]

I could even say there is some resemblance. But I digress.

Meanwhile, MSM appears not to notice the Obama campaign’s obsession with contraception and women’s “healthcare choices” (i.e., abortion). But if conservatives were to dare to broach the topic, they would be accused of ignoring what America really cares about, jobs and the economy. Or their words would be twisted.

Obama was audacious enough to write about his own audacity. Nowhere is that more on display than now. Here is a man who is so fanatical about abortion he endorses infanticide. Yet he dares to make the topic a focus.

There is much Romney could make of this. But he is not budging off message. In response to the ad, his spokeswoman told Politico:

One day after the unemployment rate increased and we reached 42 consecutive months with a jobless rate greater than 8%, it is not surprising that the Obama campaign would release a false ad in an attempt to distract from the effects of the President’s failed policies.  Dishonest political attacks will not change the fact that President Obama has not turned around the economy, and his policies have hurt women and families all over the country.

Apparently, Romney is staying on message for good reason, despite the fact Democrats and Obama are taunting him in various ways – Bain, tax returns, and the supposed “war on women.”

I’ve previously written that the latter meme, launched late this winter, didn’t work. Indeed, Obama’s standing among women actually slid after he launched that attack. So he backed off. But apparently he is being forced back to it, for whatever his internal polls are showing. Likely he does not have much else. Back to Politico:

The Obama campaign initially sought to capitalize on the president’s already high approval rating among women by accusing Republicans of waging a ‘war’ on women, but has more recently focused on economic issues, Romney’s personal finances and his business record. The ad, in a sense, marks a return to the gender politics of earlier in the cycle.

Obama must hope Planned Parenthood can works its voodoo anti-Komen magic on Romney. But so far, nada.

I do think Romney can make something of Obama’s extreme views on abortion during the debate(s). Around that it is up to pro-life groups to spotlight Obama’s radical positions on abortion.


Who Is Jill Stanek?

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.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

  • May 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005

  • Categories