Rambling of the Day: Women’s rights = planned parenthood subsidies?

16 Oct

“Mitt Romney is for ending funding to Planned Parenthood,” says Eva Longoria in an ad entitled “Vote,” from moveon.org. Wow, now that is something to talk about! If Romney is elected president, he will totally cut off funding to a private sector entity. If he becomes president, he will somehow gain control of the funding of private companies and have the ability to decide if they will continue to exist.

Longoria and her fellow Hollywood babes are obviously going for the uninformed, dumb female vote with this ad, if they expect viewers to believe that Romney will somehow have the far-reaching ability to control the funding of Planned Parenthood. What Romney has said is that he will end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Taxpayer dollars will cease to fund the abortions of unborn babies through this organization. That is starkly different from simply ending funding to the company. And here’s another perspective. Romney donated 29% of his income to charity in 2011. If liberals who support Planned Parenthood could be generous with their own incomes to help the clinic, instead of passing responsibility for this funding on to taxpayers – many of whom do not support the procedures Planned Parenthood provides – then they would not have anything to whine about. Planned Parenthood, like any other company, should be able to support itself without government subsidies. Otherwise, like any other business that cannot get the funding it needs to survive, it should be allowed to go out of business.

“We have Republicans trying to redefine rape,” is Scarlett Johansson’s clever line in the ad. Yeah, who are those Republicans again? Oh, yeah, Todd Akin and – oh, that’s right, Todd Akin. There is one Republican, a candidate for senate, who has made a comment about legitimate rape – a candidate who everyone in the Republican establishment, from Sean Hannity to Romney himself, has asked to leave the race. I’ll put it this way – just because Bill Maher thinks it’s okay to use disgusting language to talk about women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman does not mean that I’m going to go around saying all liberals are disrespectful to women. But sure, it’s okay to generalize Republicans and say they are trying to redefine rape… because of a comment made by one Republican.

You want to talk about women’s rights? Hop across a continent or two and take a look at what’s happening to women. Look at 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan, who was shot by the Taliban for speaking up for education rights. Look at the gross mistreatment of women in these parts of the world, whose total lack of any kind of human rights would make you sick to your stomach to realize. If Eva Longoria and Kerry Washington really care about women’s rights, maybe they should focus their attention on actual problems, not the make-believe ones they are so adamantly against in this ad.

Oh, but Chelsea, that’s on the other side of the world. Those women are speaking up for women here in America. You can’t beat them up for that! Okay, my bad, maybe I’m getting too far out there by worrying about those other women. Let’s get back to America.

You know what women in America should be worried about? Barack Obama’s extreme, immoral stance on abortion. They should be worried that their president refused to sign a bill that would protect babies who survived labor-induced abortions the right to live.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” (http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm)

Our president thinks that if an abortion taking place in the ninth month – a time that far surpasses even the latest argued age of viability (24-27 weeks) – goes wrong, and a baby survives it is born alive, that baby, or “nine-month old fetus,” as he calls it, has no right to life. That “fetus” should still be aborted. In normal people terms, that baby, born alive, can still be killed.

But sure, let’s make the issue about Romney and his “extreme” agenda of cutting federal funding to poor Planned Parenthood, whose 40+ years of subsidies – handouts of your taxpayer dollars – are not enough to fund the country’s leading abortion provider. Let’s try to scare women into thinking their rights are what is at stake, instead of Planned Parenthood’s subsidies.

Man, you’re really hammering the abortion issue. There are other details to women’s rights than just that.

Yes, there are, and let’s take a lesson from the president. Today, the president allowed Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, to take the fall for the Benghazi incident. Obama was followed by reporters today and was perfectly able to let them know that he felt “fabulous” about the debate tonight. He was, however, silent seconds later when asked if Hillary was to blame for the attack in Benghazi. Our president would rather throw his secretary of state under the bus for this incident than to accept responsibility as commander-in-chief, for the lack of security on the anniversary of 9/11.

I’m not just singling this issue out because Hillary Clinton is a woman. It would be just as horrible if the president had done this to a male secretary of state. But for a president who acts like he is so concerned about the women of this country and their rights, how can he do this, knowing it will most likely hurt Hillary’s chances for election in 2016? How can a president who is so worried about women be so willing to throw his secretary, who could have a real chance of being the first female president in 2016, under the political bus?

The answer is simple. Obama cares about one thing right now, and that is reelection. He can let Hillary take the hit and have these celebrities spout lies to the women of this country because one thing matters, and that is spending the next four years in the White House.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Ugly Volvo

Attempts at Adulthood

Nathan Hancock

Probably not a waste of your time.

The Matt Walsh Blog

Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)

All We Are

Updates and a look behind the scenes of the non-profit organization


Creative Director

Lean Fit and Healthy Forever

One Guys Journey to Fitness


Home of Glitter and Leg Warmers


Who Said What

Elisabeth Akinwale

Athletics, Motherhood and Other SuperFantastic Subjects

Dyslexia Parents Guide

A parents journey into dyslexia

Honest Food with Amy

Changing my lifestyle, one recipe at a time!

Egg Whites Only Please

With Cheese. And Bacon. On a Bagel. Oh gosh, I love bagels (as long as they're Gluten Free).

Parenting And Stuff

Not a "how to be a great parent" blog


Good eats along I-64 in Virginia and a few beyond!

365 Days of Bacon

Every day. Bacon-fied.

%d bloggers like this: