You've Come a Long Way, Baby! [UPDATED]

How about you show some respect for yourself?

Ed Morrissey has a post today describing the potential for a backlash against the "war on women" meme the Democrat Party has planned for their upcoming national convention:

If they do, I argue in my column today for The Fiscal Times, they may well find themselves hoist with their own petard, after a week of watching accomplished Republican women speaking from the dais in Tampa.  Not only does the emphasis entirely miss the issues about which voters care most in this electoral cycle, the entire argument diminishes women to, well, to exactly what Code Pink reduced them in protests at the GOP convention...

I've made it abundantly clear that I will not be voting for the Republican ticket this year (choosing instead to support my friend, Virgil Goode, on the 100% pro-life-without-exception Constitution Party ticket). Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that, when it comes to "strong women", the GOP beats the Democrats hands down.

When I see the women at the GOP convention, I see a strong, independent, self-made African-American woman who became Secretary of State through her own efforts and merit, and not because her husband used to be President. I see a strong, independent, self-made former Vice Presidential nominee who fought her way to the top against corrupt, entrenched interests in Alaska - a man's state if ever there was one, and yet who manages to be the mother of 5 kids, making her relevant to the millions of working moms who try to balance work life with home life. I see the strong, independent first Hispanic woman governor - of either party - who, after her speech last night, will surely be on most people's short list for a spot on either the top or the bottom of a future GOP presidential ticket. I see a strong, independent woman of East Indian descent who managed to get elected Governor of arguably the most conservative state in the union, South Carolina. I see a strong, independent African-American mayor from Utah who will no doubt be a future star - in her own right - in the GOP.

Meanwhile, from the other side, all I see are women whining because "it's a scary time to be a woman" (as if it's not a scary time to be anyone), and asking for government to take care of them and give them free stuff, or worse, asking the government to force other people to provide them with birth control and other free stuff. On the other side, what we see are so-called "feminists", as in the photo at the top of this post, essentially making women out to be the sum total of what's between their legs. So much for fighting against the "objectification" of women. Which leaves one shaking one's head and responding to what's left of the so-called "feminist" movement as embodied in the modern-day Democrat Party: "You've come a long way, baby!"


UPDATE
It appears these silly people REALLY ARE intent on making this election a referendum on what they see as their own sex's weakness and dependency. (Well, they've spent 4 years not addressing the most pressing concerns of the American people, so I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd spend the election season doing the same thing.) Not content to wait until their own convention, two of the least substantively important people imaginable have brought the so-called "war on women" meme to Tampa by crashing the GOP convention.

Sort of a breach of protocol, but given what these two individuals are famous for, I think class is probably asking for too much.


UPDATE (31 August 2012)

What an absolutely asinine comment from an absolutely ridiculous and utterly unaccomplished woman. Lady (and I use the term charitably), what you saw on the stage at the GOP Convention were the future leaders of your country - all of whom got where they are through their OWN merit, hard work, and perseverence. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, the Dems will be offering up as a key speaker a similarly unaccomplished 30-year-old perpetual student whose only claim to fame is that she wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her contraception and that Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty name.


Yeah, I'd hold her up as a shining example of a "real" woman, too ... if I were as pathetically tethered to an outdated view of women as government-dependent "victims" as the Democrat Party is.

Tomorrow is “Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’ Blog Day”

Jill Stanek is asking pro-life bloggers to join her tomorrow (January 21) in asking pro-aborts ... errr ... I mean "pro-choicers" ... just exactly what it is they mean by "choice".

By the way, go here for the disgusting answer to what "choice" means.

Radical Feminists to Stay-at-Home Moms: "Get a Job!"

Matt Archbold has the scoop at National Catholic Register:

... The New York Times asked Gloria Feldt, the former head of Planned Parenthood, about how women who “flee the work force” impact those who do not.

They make it harder for the rest of us to remedy the inequities that remain. We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women. It should be acceptable criticism to point out that, although everyone has the right to make their own life decisions, choosing to “opt out” reinforces stereotypes about women’s priorities that we’ve been working for decades to shatter, so just cut it out. And, the “individual choice” women have to become stay-at-home moms becomes precarious when they try to return to the workplace and find their earning power and options reduced. If we could see child-rearing as a necessary task and not an identity, and if we could collectively recognize that facilitating it benefits us all, we would go much further in guaranteeing women’s choices than we do when we are expected to uncritically celebrate every individual’s decisions.

So let’s get this straight, the former head of Planned Parenthood is telling women to STOP being so selfish and think of someone other than themselves and their kids? Seriously?

In short, she wants you to think of Gloria Feldt’s feelings rather than your kids.

If you thought feminism was all about giving women choices, well it turns out you were wrong. Feminism is about doing what Gloria Feldt wants you to do...

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Rachel Campos Duffy: A Real Housewife of Wisconsin

Feminist Manifesto Excoriates Stay-at-Home Moms for Not Going to Work

Dutch Feminazis Want to Punish Educated Mothers

Filibuster the Nomination of Elena Kagan! [UPDATED]

My friend Don McClarey has the story on the outrageous actions of Elena Kagan in working to overturn legislative bans on partial-birth abortion: "Kagan Engaged in Falsification of Evidence to Defeat Partial Birth Abortion Ban"

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat Senator from New York, was a pro-abort, but he voted to ban partial birth abortion, which he correctly described as “barely disguised infanticide”. Many pro-aborts draw the line at this gruesome killing of an infant. Not so Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan apparently. Shannen W. Coffin has written a fascinating article at National Review Online. Coffin was the deputy attorney general in the Bush administration who defended the partial birth abortion ban law. In this article he details how Kagan falsified evidence in an attempt to defeat a partial birth abortion ban in Congress during the Clinton administration...

[...]

Go here to read the rest. Go here to read the Kagan memorandum of June 22, 1996, here to read her memorandum of December 14, 1996, and here to read Kagan’s note where she spoonfed the language to the [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)] which she wished to substitute for their prior accurate statement. Needless to say, I think Kagan’s support for partial birth abortion alone should be sufficient in any sane society to disqualify her from the Supreme Court. However, even supporters of the “barely disguised infanticide” known as partial birth abortion, should be repelled at the idea of an officer of the court altering evidence presented to Congress by the ACOG. Kagan lacks the ethics to be an attorney, let alone a justice of the Supreme Court.

My Comments:
I now wish to withdraw my initial assessment of President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, in which I concluded that it could have been much worse. I no longer believe that to be the case. Even Diane Wood would be preferable to this nominee. Kagan's nomination should be opposed with every tool available to defeat the nomination, including the filibuster.

The Democrats believed the mild-mannered, highly qualified, and well-respected Samuel Alito to be so “extreme” that his nomination to the Supreme Court merited a filibuster.

I believe the filibuster to be borderline unconstitutional when exercised in the case of judicial appointments, and believe it should have been “nuked” when the Republicans had a chance. But thanks to the Senator who just received a rare GOP primary endorsement from National Review, the filibuster is still available to defeat nominations to the judiciary.

Therefore, working within the system we have [i.e. playing by the rules the Democrats have established for judicial nominations], I now support a filibuster of Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Her views on abortion are the very definition of extreme, but that’s hardly surprising coming from a Democrat-appointed nominee. But her falsifying a scientific report that was used as evidence before Congress and subsequently in court to defeat legislative bans on one of the more brutal abortion procedures ever dreamed up shows her to be not only extreme, but unethical and untrustworthy and makes unfit to be an officer of the court, much less a life-tenured member of the highest Court in the land deciding the very issues on which she has manipulated evidence to affect the outcome.


UPDATE (1 July)
Don has an excellent follow-up regarding Kagan's Clintonian parsing of what "is" is in response to questions about her involvement in drafting the memo manipulating and falsifying the ACOG findings.

The woman is unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. The filibuster is a tool that the Dems have given us to defeat judicial nominations, and you can be quite assured that they WILL use it again in the future to try to defeat Republican nominees who are far less "extreme" than the one currently sitting before the Judiciary Committee. We may not like it, but we are handcuffing ourselves and ensuring our own destruction if we don't play by the rules that have been set for us out of some misguided notion that we might look like "hypocrites" if we use a procedure of which we've been critical in the past. (And, before anyone goes there, please spare me the One Ring analogies).


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: Not As Bad as It Could Have Been ...

Pro-Abortion "Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother" Just Doing What Jesus Would Do [UPDATED]

WWJA? Who Would Jesus Abort? That's the question on my mind now that Nancy the armchair theologian strikes again:

Pelosi Says She Has a Duty to Pursue Policies in Keeping With The Values of Jesus, 'The Word Made Flesh'

(CNSNews.com) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."

Pelosi, who is a Catholic and who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003.

At a May 6 Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill, the speaker said: “They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”

“And that Word," Pelosi said, "is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.

“Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.”

John 1:14 states, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth."

[...]

After Pope Benedict XVI met privately with Speaker Pelosi in February 2009, the Vatican issued a statement saying: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Shameless, blasphemous, murderous woman.


UPDATE (2 June)
Maybe Nancy the Theologian would like to enlighten us as to at what point the Word became flesh.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Nancy Pelosi ... Dumb@$$

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error

"Ardent Practicing" Conservative Catholic Grandmother™ Calls Opponents of ObamaCare Nazis

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion

Pope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith

National Organization for Women: Bart Stupak is "Un-American"

From the Catholic League:

March 11, 2010


Mary Pollock, legislative vice president of the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women, yesterday accused Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic, of imposing his religious beliefs on the nation. “It is outrageous and un-American,” Pollock said of the pro-life congressman.

Commenting on this remark is Bill Donohue of the Catholic League:

Smear words have been used against virtually every religious, racial and ethnic group in American history. Fortunately, they are rarely voiced anymore. Unfortunately, it is still fair game in many quarters to indict Roman Catholics. One of the most vile canards ever invoked against Catholics is the rap that they are “un-American.” This bigoted slur has its origins in the early part of the 19th century. It is more than disconcerting—it is disgusting—that it is still being made against Catholics in 2010. That it should come from the mouth of a radical feminist activist is not wholly surprising, but it is reprehensible nonetheless.

As the clock winds down on the health care bill, anti-Catholicism is raising its ugly head with greater frequency. It is time for men and women of goodwill from all faith backgrounds, and on both sides of the abortion issue, to unequivocally denounce these bigoted expressions. What Mary Pollock said should be condemned by everyone.

Contact the Michigan president of NOW, Renee Beeker: Presidentminow@aol.com

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
It seems that Mark Stricherz was mistaken in his recent assertion that "you can't hate Bart Stupak", even if you disagree with him.

If you're a radical feminist hell-bent (literally) on providing federal funding for abortion-on-demand, apparently you can.


UPDATE
Here's the story to which the Catholic League is referring:

Lawmaker's Clash With Fellow Democrats Nothing New

... Anti-abortion allies such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops want Stupak, a devout Roman Catholic, to dig in.

He insists he favors overhauling the nation's health care system, even describing it as a "pro-life" cause, and says a deal with House Democratic leaders is within reach.

"But you don't start compromising your values and principles based on some historical purpose, so 20 years from now people will look back and say, 'Wasn't that a sign of courage?'" he said. "They'll also say, 'Yeah, where were his principles and beliefs?' I think that lasts longer. When I leave Congress, I'm still going to have my integrity in place."

Connie Saltonstall, a former Charlevoix County commissioner who announced Tuesday she would oppose Stupak for the Democratic nomination, said his priorities were upside down.

"I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views," said Saltonstall, 64. "But to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible."

[...]

Critics accuse him of imposing his religious beliefs on the nation. "It is outrageous and un-American," said Mary Pollock of the National Organization for Women's Michigan chapter.

[...]

"People say I'm doing this for the Catholic bishops; they have nothing to do with it. I've always been pro-life. If anything, I've been consistent."

(emphasis added)

Got that, mackerel snappers? Leave your values at the statehouse door.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Mark Stricherz: "You Can’t Hate Bart Stupak"

Hoyer: Dems Could Create Abortion Bill - TO BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY - to Satisfy Stupak

Aborting the Stupak-Less Senate Health Care Bill

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

Patrick Archbold on "The Great Pro-Life Outing"

Bart Stupak: Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival in House

Steve Dillard on Bart Stupak: "Pro-Life Warrior"

To Bart Stupak, On the Eve of Battle

Democrats Reveal Priorities: Universal Abortion Trumps Universal Health Coverage

Health Care, Politicians and the Catholic Conscience

Feel Free to Oppose Health Care Reform in Good Conscience ...

White House at Odds with Bishops Over Abortion Coverage in Reid "Health Care" Bill

"Pro-Life" Harry Reid Strips Stupak Language from Senate ObamaCare Bill

Epic Fail: Legal Hack Toobin Relies on Falsified Source for Abortion "History" in Article Against Stupak Amendment

Stupak Warns Democrats Not to Mess with Anti-Abortion Health Care Language

Because Blaming the Minority Opposition Party is Easier Than Owning Up to Having Aligned Yourself With a Party For Whom Abortion is a Sacrament

A Big Pro Ecclesia Thank You ...

Stupak Still Fighting Good Fight: Says He Has 40 Democrat Votes to Stop Health Care Reform Over Abortion Coverage; Says President Being Disingenuous

House Democrats Block Vote to Cut Abortion From Health Care Bill

Michael Sean Winters: "Deceitful Bogeyman" of the Catholic Left

Catholic Bishops: All Current Health Care Bills in Congress Would Permit Federal Funding of Abortion

Catholic Senators are Decisive Factor in Defeating Abortion Funding Ban and Conscience Protection in Health Care Bill

Can Stupak Be Counted Upon to Stand Firm on Abortion? Probably Not

Congressman Bart Stupak, Democrat, Defending the Right to Life in Heath Care

Pro-Life Catholic Dem: "We Believe We Have the Votes" to Shut Down Healthcare Over Abortion

Obama Won't Meet With Pro-Life Democrat to Discuss Abortion, Health Care

Pro-Life Catholic Dem: Prevent Abortion Funding, Or I'll Block Healthcare

House Democrats Will Likely Prevent Vote to Remove Abortion From Health Care

Deal Hudson: "Why Catholics Will Not Get Abortion Out of the Health Care Bill" [UPDATED]

LA Times: Next Hurdle in Healthcare "Debate" is Abortion

Congressman Smith Warns Against Phony ‘Compromise’ on Abortion Mandates in ObamaCare

Dem Says Language Expressly Prohibiting Abortion Funding a Must in Health Care Bill [UPDATED]

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Quote of the Day: Washington Post Columnist Sally Jenkins on the Tebow Ad

From a self-described "pro-choice" columnist at The Washington Post:

... Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t...

[Read the whole thing]

She goes on to talk about how Tebow is exactly the sort of responsible young man with a social conscience that women should be praising and celebrating. Definitely worth a read.

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Feminist Hypocrites at NOW Attack Tebow Ad

Feminist Hypocrites at NOW Attack Tebow Ad

NOW President Terry O'Neil says:

“CBS: Do the right thing. Pull the ad. Let's focus on the game.”

Because, you know, radical feminists would NEVER distract our focus away from the game by using the Super Bowl to push a particular agenda (especially an agenda that relied on "facts" that turned out to be completely bogus).

Nah, they would NEVER do that.


UPDATE
And now the feminist hypocrites are going on the attack against Tebow's mom. Disgusting.

Another Candidate for Don's "Know-Nothing" Series [UPDATED]

[See below for update. It appears Congresswoman DeGette was misquoted by The Hill.]

Pro-abort Congresswoman (and Chief-Deputy Whip) Diana DeGette:

The Hill writes up an ABC interview:

She also said that religiously-affiliated groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had pushed for the Stupak provision, should be shut out of the process.

"Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."

[More]

Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic, who has even more on the story.


UPDATE (18 November)
It seems The Hill misquoted Congresswoman DeGette.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Politico Says Catholic Church Racist and Sexist

The New Know-Nothings and the Reprise of a Major Award for "Outstanding" Achievements in Anti-Catholicism

If Only He Had Lived a Full Life, Just Think of All the Good He Could've Done

(Hat tip: The Cranky Conservative)

Rich Leonardi links to what must surely be regarded as the quote of the day:

“Jesus chose the apostles, he chose men not women.” As a believer in Jesus Christ, I choose to believe that had he more time, Jesus would have eventually seen the light and taken full advantage of the brillance, endurance and patience of women, thus entrusting them as apostles (”Women of faith: no stifling debate“). I have faith he would ensure equality. Jesus Christ who believes in all of us (regardless of religion) provides through faith, hope for change. The truths of our faith are simply that…rules are instituted by the church, they can change.

The Cranky Conservative puts it best:

That’s a lot of stupid in just one paragraph ...

But Fr. Schnippel sums up the theology nicely:

Looks like a winner in the 'How many heresies can you fit into five lines?' contest!

UPDATE (22 September)
Additional comments from me can be read at Rich's and Paul's blogs.

Fr. Euteneuer's Response to Cecile Richards' Attack On Catholic Bishops

Pro-Life Leader Blasts Planned Parenthood President for Dishonest Attack on US Bishops:

FRONT ROYAL, VA — Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, President of Human Life International (HLI), today blasted Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for her scathing and error-filled attack on the U.S. Catholic Bishops who have called for abortion to be excluded from all proposed national health care legislation.

“Ms. Richards has done a favor to all pro-lifers and people of good faith in her hate-filled rant against the shepherds of our beloved Church,” said Fr. Euteneuer. “First, she has reminded everyone that, despite President Obama’s recent statements to the contrary, abortion is absolutely going to be covered in any health care reform legislation that crosses his desk. He and his cronies in Congress are much too beholden to the abortion lobby for any different outcome.”

“Second, she again highlights the extreme position of the organization she leads, and their hostility to the Catholic Church. No Catholic Organization should be comfortable finding themselves on the same side of the table as this hateful anti-woman outfit,” said Fr. Euteneuer.

“Finally, among her many factual errors Ms. Richards claims that, despite the findings of virtually every study on the subject, expanded access to contraception will somehow reduce the number of abortions,” said Fr. Euteneuer. “What does she recommend, force-feeding young women contraception? How much more access can be granted to this environment-destroying, blood-clot causing, biology-altering chemical that, as the Catholic Church predicted, has resulted in more, not less, abortions?”

“God bless our bishops who courageously and repeatedly stand up to such lies, even as they support the ideal of health care availability for all ...

Read the entire post here.

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
In Face of Planned Parenthood Attack, USCCB Official Insists Abortion is Not Health Care

Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood Attack U.S. Catholic Bishops for Defending Life

In Face of Planned Parenthood Attack, USCCB Official Insists Abortion is Not Health Care

Yesterday, I blogged about the full-frontal assault on the Church and Bishops by the President's pro-abortion allies at Planned Parenthood.

An official at the USCCB has responded to the attack:

... Speaking to CNA on Wednesday morning, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USSCB’s Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, addressed Cecile Richard's claims.

Doerflinger said Richards erred in claiming most Americans favored “comprehensive reproductive health care.”

“This is not supported by majority of Americans. The majority of Americans describe themselves as pro-life.

“We don’t see the taking of human life, at any stage, as health care at all. Most Americans do not want to pay for abortions,” he remarked.

“We mean by universal coverage what everybody but Planned Parenthood means. That is, we need to cover all the people. We know that people need health care throughout life from conception to natural death. That is why fetology is a branch of human medicine, which Richards seem unaware of,” Doerflinger said.

***
Asked to respond to Richards’ criticisms of U.S. bishops’ actions on condoms and the AIDS pandemic, he replied:

“The Catholic Church has done more to fight AIDS in Africa than Planned Parenthood has. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want people to know that hormonal contraception has actually been associated with an increased risk of contracting AIDS. It has nothing to do with preventing AIDS, something to do with making it worse.

“Our major arguments on this have not been about contraception,” he clarified. “She likes to change the subject.

“But it is the case that there is a great deal of evidence that contraceptive programs fail to reduce abortions. We cite the primary sources for that on our website so that people can read them for themselves.”

***
He said it was necessary to stop “running away from the facts” and “citing contraception as the cure for everything” when the evidence is otherwise.

Doerflinger said the bishops’ materials about health care reform have been centered on supporting universal coverage, but opposing mandated abortion coverage.

“She keeps talking about how we’re trying to diminish a right,” he said of Richards. “A mandate is not consistent with a personal choice. If what she’s talking about is people’s personal ability to choose whether or not to buy abortion coverage, we’re not going to oppose legislation that allows that.

“We’re talking about the government mandating that people purchase abortion coverage against their will. Why would she be against that if she favors ‘choice’?

“To get into the government-run health plan you must buy abortion coverage. That’s contrary to personal choice. Maybe she should be joining us in our effort.”

“We think the abortion issue is paramount, because we see it as really the taking of a life in existence.”

Doerflinger then summed up his objections to Planned Parenthood’s position:

“I think what Planned Parenthood is saying is that millions of people must continue to go without basic health care unless they can get their wish list of making everyone pay for abortions. I think that the charge of being ‘single issue’ falls squarely back on Planned Parenthood’s side, because this is not the kind of health care that most Americans want to purchase or have to pay for.

“This issue could bring down health care reform. We hope that that does not happen, but an insistence on this one issue on their part might do so.”

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood Attack U.S. Catholic Bishops for Defending Life

Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood Attack U.S. Catholic Bishops for Defending Life

Deacon Keith Fournier writes about a full-frontal assault on the U.S. Bishops and the Church's pro-life teachings by one of President Obama's good friends and key pro-abort allies, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - An article entitled “Bishops' Health Care Far From Universal” recently appeared in the Huffington Post and was widely distributed in the Anti-Life blogosphere. Written by Cecile Richards, the President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, it wrongfully and disrespectfully attacked the Catholic Bishops of the United States as somehow “anti-woman”.

However, it also revealed the truth that she and her colleagues insist is some sort of a “Myth” manufactured by the Pro-Life community; Abortion is a part of the current Health Care Reform Plan proposals. Ms. Richards and her cohorts are feeling the heat. The lie behind the denial of this fact is being revealed and the majority of Americans do not want tax dollars used for abortion, in spite of her claims to the contrary.

In her first paragraph, after an initial diatribe against the leaders of the Catholic Church, she asks the following question: “Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?” She continues a few lines down “…Seems that, if the U.S. Conference (of catholic Bishops) had its way, the national health care system would make American women second-class citizens and deny them access to benefits they currently have.…The danger, of course, is not simply that the bishops are pushing to erode decades of legal access to contraception and abortion in America. Their hard-line opposition to women's rights also endangers millions of women around the globe -- where women also need universal health care access. The effort to criminalize access to safe abortion endangers most women in the developing world -- the very women that you would think the bishops would be concerned about.”

***
At the end of her recent attack on the U.S. Bishops Ms. Richards concluded with these words “…We call upon Congress and the White House to continue to stand firmly on the side of women in health care reform. Women are needed to pass health care reform - and we are not going backwards and we are not going away”. I believe there are millions of women who find her presumptuous claim to be empowered to speak for them deeply offensive. That does not even include the millions of girl children in the womb who cannot be heard. It is time for all of those women to raise their voice in opposition to her anti-life message and her organization. It is also why we must oppose any effort to include the taking of the lives of children in the womb under any “Health Care Reform.”

[Read the whole thing]

Here's more about Richards and her close ties to the President: "Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards in cozy with Obama".




UPDATE
More from The Catholic League: "Planned Parenthood Rips Bishops":

... Cecile Richards is now accusing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops of seeking to make “American women second-class citizens.” And that’s just the danger they are doing at home. Abroad, “their hard-line opposition to women’s rights also endangers millions of women around the globe.” Why they haven’t been locked up, she does not say.

Richards was recently summoned to the White House to discuss health care reform. Is this the kind of advice she was given—to lash out at Catholic bishops? If not, then someone needs to rein her in before the whole health care package blows up in their face.

Richards is either ignorant or lying when she says “comprehensive reproductive health care [is] supported by the majority of Americans.” In fact, nearly two in three Americans (63 percent) favor laws preventing the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. But no matter, data never convince ideologues.

This is great. The American people are called fascists by U.S. Congressmen because they oppose the health care bills now on the table, and Catholic bishops are told by one of the leading proponents of health care reform that they are a threat to human rights. This is the politics of self-destruction on steroids.

(emphasis added)

President of Catholic College: "If It Came Down To It We Would Close the College Before We Ever Provided [Contraceptive Coverage in Health Care Plan]"

From The Washington Times:

The president of a small Catholic college said Friday he would rather close the school's doors than violate the church's teachings on contraception should the college lose the latest battle involving health-insurance laws and religious freedom.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that Belmont Abbey College violated discrimination laws because the school's employee health insurance plan does not cover contraception, according to a letter the EEOC sent to the school.

"I hope it would never get this far," college President William K. Thierfelder told The Washington Times, "but if it came down to it we would close the college before we ever provided that."

The factual conclusion reached by the EEOC could be a precursor to the commission filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the college.

"By denying prescription contraceptive drugs, [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," the EEOC wrote in a letter to the North Carolina college. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

Mr. Thierfelder disputed that conclusion in a letter posted on the college's Web site: "Belmont Abbey College rejects the notion that by following the moral teachings of the Catholic Church we are discriminating against anyone.

"We are simply and honestly exercising the freedom of religion that is protected by the Constitution," he wrote.

[More]

UPDATE
Chris Blosser has more details at Catholics in the Public Square: "Catholic college faces lawsuit over refusal to provide contraception".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
EEOC Violates Religious Liberty By Forcing Catholic College to Provide Insurance for Contraceptives

EEOC Violates Religious Liberty By Forcing Catholic College to Provide Insurance for Contraceptives

In Obama's America, sex without consequences trumps religious liberty:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a small Catholic college must include coverage for artificial contraceptives in its employee health insurance plan, raising new concerns about the need for conscience protections and religious exemptions in America’s health care policies.

The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) today sent a letter to EEOC acting chairman Stuart Ishimaru, noting that “it is ironic that the federal agency responsible for protecting against discrimination has so blatantly engaged in an inexcusable violation of religious liberty in its Belmont Abbey ruling.”

CNS also is sending a letter to all Catholic bishops in the United States, informing them of the EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College and highlighting the dangerous precedent this ruling sets to force Catholic employers to include contraceptive coverage in employee health plans.

“No Catholic college or other institution should be required by government to violate the Catholic Church’s clear moral teachings,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “The apparently increasing insensitivity to religious beliefs should frighten all employers and employees. We urge religious leaders to stand in defense of Belmont Abbey College.”

In December 2007, Belmont Abbey College removed coverage for abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization after they were accidentally included in the college’s insurance plan. Eight faculty members filed complaints with the EEOC and the North Carolina Department of Insurance.

“As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church,” said Belmont Abbey President William Thierfelder. “There was no other course of action possible if we were to operate in fidelity to our mission and to our identity as a Catholic college.”

The EEOC determined that Belmont Abbey has discriminated against women by denying coverage of contraception.

“By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent [Belmont Abbey College] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women,” wrote Reuben Daniels Jr. in his determination as the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director.

Belmont Abbey College has been directed by the EEOC to reach an agreeable resolution with faculty. If this does not happen, Daniels will advise the parties of available enforceable court alternatives.

My Comments:
This must be that "sensible" conscience protection that Dear Leader spoke of at the Notre Dame commencement exercises.

[NOTE that at the end of Obama's Notre Dame quote regarding a "sensible conscience clause" he mentions "respect for the equality of women"; apparently, that last phrase was meant as a modifier of the first part of the statement, so that whether a particular conscience clause qualifies as "sensible" will be judged in light of whether it "respects[s] ... the equality of women", or at least "equality" as that term is interpreted by Obama's EEOC.]

Virginia Democrat Stakes Gubernatorial Campaign on Killing Babies [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

RedState reports:

Politicians are usually known for kissing babies. But not R. Creigh Deeds. The Democrat candidate for Virginia governor is attacking Republican Bob McDonnell’s pro-life views in a desperate attempt to woo female voters and excite his liberal base. Tomorrow he will rally with NARAL to promote his pro-abortion position.

Deeds previewed his attack for the Washington Post, telling the newspaper, “I think it’s an area that shows a clear distinction between us.”

At a time when McDonnell is talking about Virginia’s ailing economy, transportation problems and education, it’s somewhat surprising that Deeds is embracing a divisive issue. It’s a gamble that even the liberal Post dubbed “risky.”

The previous two Democrat candidates for governor largely ignored social issues to focus on the economy and transportation. But neither Mark Warner nor current Gov. Tim Kaine faced the same kind of lackluster support that Deeds seems to be experiencing. A recent SurveyUSA poll put McDonnell ahead with a commanding 15-point advantage, including a 60% to 35% edge among self-described political independents.

McDonnell dismissed the abortion attack. His campaign circulated a memo from campaign chairman Ed Gillespie that said McDonnell’s “views on life are consistent with his faith and his belief that innocent life should be protected.” The memo also criticized Deeds for failing to put forward solutions on bread-and-butter issues...

[more]

My Comments:
For those unfamiliar with the politics of The Old Dominion, in a 32-year trend, the voters of the Commonwealth of Virginia have shown that they prefer to have a Governor from the opposing party of the occupant of The White House:

1976 Presidential race winner: Jimmy Carter (D)
1977 VA Governor race winner: John Dalton (R)

1980 Presidential race winner: Ronald Reagan (R)
1981 VA Governor race winner: Chuck Robb (D)

1984 Presidential race winner: Ronald Reagan (R)
1985 VA Governor race winner: Gerald Baliles (D)

1988 Presidential race winner: George H. W. Bush (R)
1989 VA Governor race winner: Douglas Wilder (D)

1992 Presidential race winner: Bill Clinton (D)
1993 VA Governor race winner: George Allen (R)

1996 Presidential race winner: Bill Clinton (D)
1997 VA Governor race winner: Jim Gilmore (R)

2000 Presidential race winner: George W. Bush (R)
2001 VA Governor race winner: Mark Warner (D)

2004 Presidential race winner: George W. Bush (R)
2005 VA Governor race winner: Tim Kaine (D)

This pattern does not bode well for the pro-abort Mr. Deeds.


UPDATE
Ramesh offers his take:

Democrat Creigh Deeds, down in the polls in the race for governor of Virginia, has decided to campaign against Republican Robert McDonnell for having spent too much time during his career trying to restrict abortion. Here are five reasons why this tactic is unlikely to work...

[More]

By the way, I'm currently visiting my old stomping grounds in Charlottesville, and I got a kick out of a campaign sign for Deeds (just like this one) that Sarah and I saw the other day:


LOL! Boy, THAT'S going to get him LOTS of votes. The only people likely to vote for Deeds on the basis of that sign are those who were already going to vote for him anyway. LOL!

Forget About the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and the Council on Foreign Relations ...

... meet "The Elders".

And right there near the top of the page under "Latest Initiatives":

The Elders call for an end to the use of religious and traditional practices to justify and entrench discrimination against women and girls.

And just what might those "religious and traditional practices" entail? "The Elders" link to this opinion piece to provide an answer:

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

(Jimmy Carter, crummy president and an even crummier theologian - not to mention anti-Catholic bigot)

A good analysis of this group of illuminati and their efforts to stamp out "discrimination" by autocratic men in church hierarchies can be found here:

... Religion has little role in this enterprise. In fact, the elders see it as a primary oppressor of women and a source of many of mankind's problems.

This is particularly evident in the discussion of one of the main issues listed on the website, "equality of women and girls." The page addressing the issue specifically targets religion as a source of discrimination. Jimmy Carter, writing in his role as an elder, elaborated on this recently when he quit the Southern Baptist Convention because of their position against ordaining women as deacons and pastors. In a commentary article in The Age, an Australian Newspaper, he made it clear that religions that will not ordain women are antiquated and discriminatory. "The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men," Carter wrote, "owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths." This was clearly a swipe at all faiths, including the Catholic Church, that do not ordain women. It is the same language adopted by feminist groups advocating women priests.

Carter also used not so coded language to attack the Church for its opposition to abortion. "The belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives." While the Elders' website carries nothing about abortion, the language that fills U.N. documents about women "controlling their bodies" and women's reproductive rights should concern anyone about the ultimate goals of this group, especially since many are well known for their abortion advocacy. Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Kofi Annon, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela all have extreme pro-abortion backgrounds.

In fact, the Elders looks like one more group of elitist ideologues who believe that human effort can bring about Utopia. Their cumulutive record of pro-abortion and pro-population control politics makes it questionable whether they really have the interests of individual people at heart. As Screwtape, C.S. Lewis' senior devil, always advised his nephew Wormwood, keep man's attention on humanity as a whole and he'll overlook the hungry man next door.

I must say that, when it comes to secret societies of the wealthy and powerful elites bent on one-world government, I prefer The Pentavirate:


(Hat tip: Notes on the Culture Wars)

Rep. Tim Ryan and Other Lefties Trash Dems for Life

We've already seen U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) call Democrats for Life of America a "fringe group" and accuse them of kicking him to the curb over his views on contraception. Now some of Ryan's "pro-choice" feminist friends have gotten in on the action.

This blogger sets the record straight:

... None of them took a second to review Congressman Ryan’s voting record to see if it made sense for a prolife group to continue to have someone with a 0% prolife voting record over the last 3 years on their advisory board. Nor did they take a gander to see if anyone else who hadn’t been kicked off Democrats for Life’s advisory board supported contraception like say Nat Hentoff or James Langevin...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Democrats for Life Give Boot to Ohio Congressman

Human Rights Court Case Could be Europe's Roe v. Wade

(Hat tip: PewSitter.com)

Keep an eye on this one:

STRASBOURG, July 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The importance of the case of three women challenging the Irish constitutional protections for the unborn has "grown exponentially" says a pro-life attorney that is involved in the case. Not only is the Republic of Ireland's ability to have legal protections for the unborn now at stake in the high profile case currently before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but potentially the entire continent's.

"This case could be the Roe v. Wade of Europe, so its importance should not be underestimated," said Roger Kiska of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the public-interest legal alliance that is acting to protect the existing law.

The significance of the ABC v. Ireland case has increased sharply since Wednesday when the court allowed the case to go to the Grand Chamber reserved for those cases of international significance. Decisions of the Grand Chamber are binding on all lower courts and all member states. Attorneys say that the decision in the case will now affect policy for all of the European Union.

In 2007, three abortion activists filed a complaint with the ECHR claiming that the protections for unborn children in the Irish constitution jeopardized their "health and wellbeing" when they had to travel abroad for abortions. This, they said, placed "enormous physical, emotional and financial burdens" upon them. They are claiming that the law created "delays and hardships" resulting in each of them having a later abortion.

***
"Ireland's constitutional amendment defending innocent life is under attack, and now the stakes have just gotten higher," said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska.

"The case is not only pivotal to Europe; it is pivotal to America as well," Kiska added. "With ever-greater frequency, American courts have considered what other countries are doing when deciding their own cases."

My Comments:
That last paragraph in the quoted excerpt raises an important point. Should abortion become a "human right" across the entire European Union, given "swing vote" Justice Kennedy's penchant for relying on foreign precedence when it comes to giving jurisprudential content to such vacuous concepts as "[the] mysteries of the universe" and "the meaning of human existence", it would make overturning Roe v. Wade and its progeny that much more difficult.

Is “Reproductive Choice” Resulting in Fewer Girls Being Born in the U.S.?

My latest post at First Thoughts: Is “Reproductive Choice” Resulting in Fewer Girls Being Born in the U.S.?

(Hat tip: Dale Price)