The a-ha moment for me was the 2012 Democratic National Convention. It was just awful… I just said I can’t be associated structurally with that group, in terms of abortion and NARAL [Pro-Choice America] and Planned Parenthood and [the] same-sex marriage agenda and cultural destruction I saw going on. I just couldn’t do it anymore. […]

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• Kirsten Powers uses her latest column to point out how Wendy Davis doesn’t know what she’s talking about when she speaks on abortion:
  

  Despite frequently mocking anti-abortion activists as anti-science know-nothings, abortion rights absolutists are the ones who play fast and loose with the facts of abortion. Because they are so rarely asked to defend their positions, Davis and her ilk apparently don’t feel the need to be informed.

  Follow-up questions to their strange and often empirically false statements are almost nonexistent, while offensive or misinformed comments from GOP back benchers are greeted with full-scale media hysteria.

The Associated Press tells us that the “GOP-led House on Tuesday passed a far-reaching anti-abortion bill.” But don’t worry, Politico adds. It is “largely symbolic: The bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate.” … The Democrats’ ill-fated gun restriction push was never a “symbolic effort” or “far-reaching,” was it? Coverage of the Newtown, […]

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• Joe Carter responds to the NY Times story editorial on the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:
  

  Which Republican leaders made the claim? Peters doesn’t say. He also doesn’t explain how — or even if — the abortion issue hurt the GOP with women in 2012. But everyone at the New York Times already knows it did, and common knowledge doesn’t need to be supported with facts, right? And there is no issue here of married women vs. single women, when it comes to voting. Right? All women support abortion rights, or so Peters would have us think.

As Democrats consider whether to use the so-called nuclear option to rewrite the Senate’s filibuster rules, one issue in particular has some liberals worried: abortion.

Changing the rules to make it easier to confirm President Barack Obama’s executive branch or judicial appointments may help the White House in the short term…. But privately, that base and abortion rights supporters are concerned how a future GOP president and Senate could take advantage of the new setup.

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• At the Daily Caller, our own Jill Stanek writes about President Barack Obama’s history of “blind faith in abortion doctors” like Kermit Gosnell:
  

  Note Obama expressed concern that saving abortion survivors “might impact… the relationship between the doctor and the patient,” and that this [Illinois Born Alive] legislation was “really designed to burden the original decision….”

  … Obama apparently cannot fathom that an upstanding abortionist who had been paid to kill a baby wouldn’t turn around and try to save a viable baby’s life in the event of a botch.

  Kermit Gosnell would have been one of the abortionists in which Obama had “confidence.”

[L]ast February… the national Susan G. Komen Foundation initially announced it would stop funding Planned Parenthood, but then reinstated that funding within a few days…. We understand that your silent auction donations are intended for the Nebraska affiliate of Susan G. Komen which may not have any funding going to Planned Parenthood, but the fact […]

So the NRA, members of the NRA – you see, you gun owners, I have to tell you, you are seen in exactly the same light as pro-lifers are seen, a bunch of pickup-truck-driving hayseed hicks who get to church on Saturday night to get a close parking space for services on Sunday. And you […]