Despite promises from Obama and a strongly-supported measure in the House, the new version of the health care bill funds abortions. Americans United for Life Action have a new ad urging Congress and Obama to prohibit any federal funding from going to abortions.

Susan B. Anthony List also has more information about abortion and the Health Care Summit last week. This is a major problem. Americans should not be required to fund abortions with tax dollars.

Once upon a time, I used to find common ground with liberals on the abortion issue. We both agreed that all sides were too polarized to actually accomplish anything and that society could make some changes to decrease the demand for abortion. I’ve long advocated that birth control should be more readily accessible and abstinence-plus courses taught in high school. I also believe that passing laws that limit abortion are better than fighting to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Saving lives should be the goal–the lives of both women and children.

Not anymore.

I don’t know if life has been devalued so much that the brutal shock of abortion isn’t chilling, or if pro-choice forces are so backed into the corner that they’ve become stubbornly entrenched into their talking points. Today, I saw two things from feminist sources on the web that truly disgusted me.

A woman is now tweeting her abortion. Four weeks into her pregnancy, she decided to obtain the RU486, the “abortion pill” and is chronicling it for the internet masses. Broadsheet writes:

Instead, she explains in a YouTube video pasted below, her aim is to remove the shame and “demystify” the experience of terminating a pregnancy, “so that women know, hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.” She says, “It’s not that bad, it’s not that scary. It’s basically like a miscarriage.” (Remember, we’ve already written about a woman who tweeted her miscarriage.) In her Twitter feed, she talks spotting, nausea, cramps and Vicodin. She doesn’t make it sound like a walk in the park — and of course it isn’t, her body is working to expel the embryo from her uterus — but there is something reassuring about how she matter-of-factly walks us, and herself, through the whole process. It’s as though she’s live-tweeting the aftermath of a routine medical procedure, like a wisdom tooth extraction.

Tracy Clark-Flory, who’s quickly surpassing Jessica Valenti levels of callous idiocy, likens abortion to having a tooth pulled:

In fact, before I went in for what felt like terrifying oral surgery to remove a backasswards tooth from my sinus cavity — freaky, right? — I went on YouTube and watched footage of similar procedures and video blogs of people’s recovery process. It replaced all of my far-fetched nightmarish visions with concrete, factual information. Without that, I might have gone running for the hills — or at least passed out in the waiting room. Considering that abortion is so prone to politicized distortions and outright lies, Jackson is doing women a real favor. This isn’t another case of overshare-itis, it’s an example of how amid all the frivolous cacophony of Facebook, Twitter and the like, some folks are, like, actually doing good. Oh, Internet, you enigma you.

Babies. troublesome teeth. They’re all the same, right? Having a dentist pull a tooth with Novocaine is so similar to having saline shot into your uterus until it burns a fetus alive or a giant vacuum suck out the live fetus because that’s the reality of abortion. I doubt the baby being aborted would tweet such a pleasant experience if it were possible.

It’s also not like footage of abortions hasn’t existed before now. When did Silent Scream come out…1984? It’s been online since the concept of online video was around, long before YouTube. “Facts” just don’t exist to abortion supporters until it suits their needs.

Secondly, one of the feminists I follow on Twitter linked to ImNotSorry.net, a web site dedicated to women sharing “positive” experiences with abortion. My stomach turned when I read this. I wish this was just denial, but it goes deeper. This is callous and cruel. I imagine a serial killer message board would be similar.

Honestly, pro-choicers remind me of two-year-olds in mid-tantrum. They know that their parents are right, but they’re going to dig into their fit and scream as loud and long as possible. It is impossible to argue with them because all rationality is gone. They don’t care if the “political right” that they argue for is unbelievably violent and cruel. (Were livestock treated as an aborted fetus, it would be deemed animal cruelty, but that’s our screwed up world. Read the Humane Slaughter Act if you don’t believe me.) The point is that they want it available. All other truths and consequences be damned. Every sick woman who tweets or blogs works to further desensitize the horrors of abortion. This helps them achieve their goal of devaluing life. That’s their end game.

We teach our kids in history about the Holocaust and wonder how it happened. Yet, we sit back and allow abortion to continue in our society, while increasingly-sick pro-choice groups revel in their ability to systematically murder our young. How can you read these sites and not be utterly ashamed at what our society allows?

Once upon a time even pro-choice supporters admitted that abortion was a terrible thing and should be limited. Not anymore. Now they celebrate it.

Update: Since my friend, “usuck” had such issues with my comment policy, I decided to post his/her comment. I don’t even think it makes sense. It is completely unedited, grammar and all.

There are anti-choice people that blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors and women, but only someone with two brain cells would say they represent all anti-choice people. When focus on extreme or idiotic pro-choice people then make blanket statements about all pro-choice people, contrary to your belief, is not rational and intelligent thought. I’m pro-choice because I believe women and girls have the right to determine if they want to sacrifice their body for 9 months. It’s a woman’s choice and hers alone. The only uterus you have domain over is your own, not anyone else.

And abortion is not murder. They are two entirely different legal concepts. Read a book

What is the leading cause of death for African-Americans?

It’s not heart disease. It’s not cancer. It’s abortion.

40% of pregnancies among African-American women end in abortion. Minorities make up just 13% of the US population but account for 36% of all abortions conducted. Last fall, CNS reported on a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.

Today, Ericka Andersen wrote an article at Smart Girl Nation about abortion and the black community. She reminded me of a documentary that I saw several months ago about the black genocide in America, Maafa 21. The entire documentary can be viewed on YouTube.

What abortion fans have hidden is the devastating effect of abortion on the black community. I think it’s pretty well known that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, viewed abortion as a way to eliminate African-Americans, the poor and disabled from society. It was only after WWII and the connection between Hitler and eugenics that leaders changed the name from the American Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers disproportionately target the black neighborhoods. It’s encouraging to see the Black community fight back. Across the country, Maafa 21 is being screened at college campuses this month at Black History Month events.

This week, abortion fans revealed their true colors with the Tim Tebow ad in the most overblown “crisis!” ever. Their reaction shows that they don’t want a true and honest debate about abortion or even proactive discussions on how to decrease it. For inexplicable reasons, these women will not even tolerate the briefest hint that life is an option when it comes to unplanned or high-risk pregnancies and blindly fight to ensure that women only abort.

It’s time for Christians, regardless of race, to band together and fight this genocide. I don’t care what political party you belong to. Watch Maafa 21 online and tell me that you aren’t disgusted by what has happened to the black community.

It’s rare that a Washington Post columnist echos sentiments that were written here. Sally Jenkins, a sports columnist and self-declared feminist defends Tim Tebow over the silly media frenzy that NOW has concocted in a desperate plea for media attention. While I disagree with her politics, Jenkins nails it with her column on several points.

1) NOW doesn’t represent all women, just women who support abortion without restrictions. Jenkins writes:

I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Now, where have I heard that before? Possibly here?

Many have complained that this isn’t fair because CBS has apparently changed a policy. Get over it. Do you really think they’re going to favor a fervently conservative organization? CBS is in the business to make money not win brownie points with Christians. If Focus was the first group to benefit from a policy change, that leaves feminist groups looking like whiny kids. At some point in women’s history, the “It’s not Fair!” charge has to end.

2) Free speech works both ways.

This is a lesson that both liberals and some right-wing groups could learn. Just because someone says something that you don’t like, you can’t silence them. Free speech is still a right in this country. As an organization, it is your job to ensure that your message is strong enough to withstand attacks from the other side. Clearly, NOW has issues with the validity of their message when they won’t even allow it to be debated. Jenkins explains:

Let me be clear again: I couldn’t disagree with Tebow more. It’s my own belief that the state has no business putting its hand under skirts. But I don’t care that we differ. Some people will care that the ad is paid for by Focus on the Family, a group whose former spokesman, James Dobson, says loathsome things about gays. Some will care that Tebow is a creationist. Some will care that CBS has rejected a gay dating service ad. None of this is the point. CBS owns its broadcast and can run whatever advertising it wants, and Tebow has a right to express his beliefs publicly. Just as I have the right to reject or accept them after listening — or think a little more deeply about the issues. If the pro-choice stance is so precarious that a story about someone who chose to carry a risky pregnancy to term undermines it, then CBS is not the problem.

Tebow’s ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it’s apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” This is what NOW has labeled “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” But if there is any demeaning here, it’s coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren’t real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.

3) The abortion debate should be about eliminating the need for abortion not destroying the other side. I absolutely agree with Jenkins here, and believe that pro-lifers could learn a thing or two.

There’s not enough space in the sports pages for the serious weighing of values that constitutes this debate, but surely everyone in both camps, pro-choice or pro-life, wishes the “need” for abortions wasn’t so great. Which is precisely why NOW is so wrong to take aim at Tebow’s ad.

A liberal friend of mine noted on Facebook that no one is winning the culture war. I agree. Rather than proactively working to reduce the number of abortions or the need for them, both sides just take pot-shots at each other and struggle to have the final word.

This is a touchy subject within the pro-life community. Perhaps I’m a pragmatist, but I believe that under any circumstance abortion is murder, so we should work to build a society where it is not accepted. Part of this is restoring the sanctity of human life, which pro-life groups work towards. It also involves practical public policy decisions regarding access to contraception and sex education. The jury is still out on what type of sex ed works (there’s a new study out today that shows abstinence does work). Even though I used to write grants on reproductive health programs at a nonprofit, I’m still unclear what works best, and I’m familiar with the data. However, I believe that pro-lifers need to be a little more willing to work on these issues.

Conversely, anti-lifers need to face facts about how terrible abortion is. There’s nothing wrong with parental notification or requiring a woman to have a sonogram before aborting. If you are willing to end a life that you created, you should have to face that life. Convicts facing the death penalty at least get to face their victims or families of victims. The unborn do not receive that right. Instead, the anti-life movement makes it appear that abortion is some magic pill that makes a baby go “poof!” I think they’d get a lot further with their “choice” argument and feeble attempts to claim that they want to “reduce” abortions, if they came clean about the horrors of the medical procedure.

A post at Hot Air covers the anti-life/Tebow debate currently going on from an interesting perspective. After reading it, I started wondering if the true debate over feminism and all the underlying issues is the definition of female empowerment? Doctor Zero writes:

It’s nostalgic to read a press release from NOW again. The organization was last seen sinking into the bubbling tar of the Clinton impeachment saga, babbling incomprehensibly about how sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal when pro-abortion Democrat presidents do it. Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

As I said earlier this week, feminists desperately need pro-lifers to continue the debate and keep their movement somewhat cohesive. Feminism is such a fractured ideal that abortion, err “women’s rights,” is the only real uniting thread. As long as the abortion debate continues, feminists have one common rallying point. Without it, they descend in to smaller, argumentative groups (lesbians vs. transgendered vs. black women vs. eco-feminists vs. porn stars vs. academics, etc. ).

We saw this in the early days of the radical women’s movement in the 6os. The movement was chaotic and cannibalistic. Every time a leader emerged, the masses destroyed her because they believed an individual female leader would trample the power of the collective. Roe vs. Wade was the only issue that anyone could unite around. After the 1973 decision, radical feminists tried to revive the movement with the Pornography Wars in the 80s but even that was contentious. As Doctor Zero wrote:

Some critics cite unquestioning support for unrestricted abortion rights as the primary demonstration of loyalty power feminists seek from their supporters, but the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Pro-lifers don’t need feminists. We have other issues and religious convictions to keep us motivated. Our movement is tightly defined and is based on absolute truths.We know that as long as abortions are conducted, we have a mission. Feminists derive their mission from fighting us. Resistance to another political force can not sustain a movement. Just look at all the failed third-parties throughout U.S. history.

But what makes feminism so fractured?  I frequently get comments from feminists saying, “If X or Y happens, perhaps all women can unite and vote together.” That simply won’t happen because of the very foundations that feminism is built on condemn it.

This is where things get confusing.  That fundamental opposition is based on the socialistic roots of feminism and the post-modern nature of the movement.

Groups based on post-modernism and moral relativism, the darlings of all left-of-center groups, will always struggle to achieve long-term survival. When truth and reality are different to each of your members, how do you form cohesion that can be multiplied into a strong political force? Dissensions and splintering will always occur. Identity politics ultimately fail. When groups form around superficial qualities rather than tightly defined philosophies, individuals with even more similarities will always join together and break off from the original group. They splinter off into smaller and smaller groups until the multiplier effect is destroyed.

This is why liberalism and progressives have always ebbed and flowed in this country. The movement consists of smaller groups that all believe different things. They were all united in 2008 against George W. Bush, but fell apart after Obama was elected. Just look at the progressive outrage at the health care bill.

Conversely, conservatism has always remained strong. Oh, we’ve achieved political power and lost it, but that is largely due to economic forces, abuse of power, a lack of leadership and the difference between Republicanism and conservatism.  Since the 18th century, the three pillars that unite conservatives have remained largely unchanged. Our labels are different (back then an American conservative would have been a liberal), but our philosophy is consistent.

This is a point that I’ve struggled to formulate for a while. I’ve discussed it terms of gender feminism vs. equity feminism, feminism vs. Feminism and Big Feminism vs. feminism. I continue to write these posts and always feel unsatisfied that I haven’t articulated what I see as the real problem. To go back to my original question, I continue to ask what is female empowerment?

On the surface, feminism is a positive thing. Hardly anyone would disagree that women have been maligned throughout history. Extending equality to cover gender and race was a much-needed step that our country took. I have no issue with this type of feminism known as equity feminism. As I’ve stated before, mainstream society absorbed this level of feminism. There will always be pockets of abuse and misogyny, but we have progressed radically in a few short decades.

To an equity feminist, female empowerment would be defined as providing equal opportunities to men and women. Once women are given the same opportunities as men, it is up to individual women to decide what is best for her life. This is why an educated woman can decide to stay home. Once society ensures the same opportunities for all genders, equality has been established. Equity feminism is built around the individual.

However, the downside is that the political movement that brought about this change has to either radically change, move onto another issue or acquiesce it’s power. It’s a problem of success.

Conversely, we have gender feminists.

Gender feminism is based on socialism. I hate invoking the socialism label, since many conservatives have cried wolf with it for so long. However, it is true. Feminism evolved out the the radical socialist movement that infiltrated the U.S. in the 1920s. Most of the early leaders in the feminist movement were members of the Communist Party or Socialist Party or were children of members.

The 1960s movement literally started when women involved with the civil rights battle were not promoted into leadership. The overwhelming majority were on the far, far left of the political spectrum and believed that capitalism, private property and right of the individual were hurting minorities and women. In order to win, those foundations had to be eliminated.

Look at the beliefs of gender feminism: men need to be suppressed to promote women, the entire patriarchy has to be destroyed to liberate women, in order to destroy the patriarchy, we have to move past capitalism, eliminate personal property and make sure that the rights of the individual do not trample the over-arching rights of the collective community. Is that not the gender version of socialism?

Remember that in socialism, the community is more important that the rights of the individual.Or as the the writers of Grassroots explained a woman can be pro-life and a feminist until she acts on her pro-life views. At that point, she’s placing her individual beliefs above other women and can’t be a feminist.

Go back to what Doctor Zero wrote:

Like every appendage of the socialist state, NOW has no principle beyond fealty to the political party that grants it power, and the Democrats used to grant them a remarkable amount of power – enough to end the careers of Navy officers and combat pilots, after “investigations” that stopped just short of waterboarding. When NOW talks about “empowering” women, it speaks in the collective sense. Empowerment comes from obedience to feminist organizations, which use that power to drag an oversized chair up to the grim carving table where the Democrat Party wields its redistibutionist cleavers.

If feminism is the gender arm of socialism, it answers to the greater political power. This is why when feminism disagrees with the leadership–the Democratic Party–feminism bends. You don’t see this in conservative circles. Many pro-life groups were blasted when they did not oppose the House’s health care bill. It was simply beyond the scope of their mission. After the Stupak Amendment was added, they were satisfied. They did not bend to the larger will of the Republican Party and rouse their members. They stuck to their individual mission.

Since the Democratic Party and the U.S. liberal community are more important than individual groups, feminists can afford to be hypocrites when it comes to defending Bill Clinton or discriminating against Sarah Palin. The collective is more important than the individual.

This is why empowering women to a gender feminist means forcing all women to agree with a checklist of issues and beliefs. Empowerment is not giving a woman the ability to make the best choices for herself, based on individual goals, beliefs and philosophies, but making sure that a woman makes decisions that uphold the collective’s views. Remember what Doctor Zero also said:

…the NOW offensive against the Tebow ad, and their response to Sarah Palin, suggest the true sacrament of radical feminism is not abortion… it’s opposition to the pro-life movement. Power in a collectivist system comes from tribal loyalty, and hatred is a powerful glue for holding collectives together. As with leftist racial groups, NOW has very little positive to offer its supporters these days, so it thrives by pointing fingers at its enemies. Religious people in general, and outspoken pro-life advocates in particular, look very good on the business end of a trembling finger.

Over and over again, I’ve said that feminism only respects liberal women. Even though a woman can reflect the values of equity feminism, that is not enough to entrenched groups like NOW. The minute they liberate their followers to support the promotion of other women, they lose the socialism war. Every Pam Tebow or Sarah Palin that deviates from the collective must be destroyed completely. Otherwise, the community is left open to asserting their own individual views and questioning the greater fight against capitalism.

I realize that this is an extraordinarily long post, but it more adequately covers my objections to feminism. Beyond the moral objections, I simply cannot support a collectivist group. The more I examine politics, the more I believe that the two philosophies of collectivism/community vs. individuals is the true battle. The issues will always change, but some people genuinely believe that their personal rights should be censored in order to make the community better. This is why liberals rarely object to higher taxes. Conservatives believe that when the individual is empowered, it encourages others to build better lives. I guess it could be described as “it takes a village vs. pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.”

Nearly every news outlet and blog has a post or story about the pro-life Tim Tebow commercial to be aired during the Superbowl on CBS.

I fail to see why this is a big deal.

The Tebows, a strong Christian family with misguided football loyalties, made a commercial with Focus on the Family about their choices. Focus then came up with the cash to buy the spot from CBS. Why then does this create controversy? Free speech works both ways.

If this ad was purchased by NARAL or EMILY’S List about how Tebow supported his girlfriend in her choice to abort due to an unplanned pregnancy, wouldn’t these groups applaud?

When did our society arrive at a place that “celebrating life,” as Focus on the Family puts it, is controversial? This ad highlights one woman’s choice. She chose not to abort and look what happened. (Who knows what might have happened if all the aborted people were allowed to live?) Women need to know that choosing life is just as valid a decision. That option is rarely given any attention. Just look at all the anger aimed at Palin for knowingly giving birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome.*

Educating women about all of their choices should be a priority of the women’s movement. However, this is only one more example of how the anti-life crowd only educates women on pre-approved “choices.” Women deserve to know all of their options. How often do they get those at an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood facility? Lila Rose has exposed how often women hear about adoption or life at those facilities.

Anti-life forces are in an uproar, but they can only speculate about what’s in the ad. All Focus on the Family has said is:

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because “families need to be inspired.”

“Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive,” Daly said. “They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values.”

Broadsheet admits that no one knows what is in the ad, but since the Women’s Media Center has launched a petition, it must be alarming. Oh my gosh! A petition! Tracy Clark-Flory writes:

A Focus on the Family spokesperson told the Washington Post that the ad isn’t overtly political, but a petition by the Women’s Media Center argues otherwise: “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” There is no denying the organization’s founder, James Dobson, is about as polarizing a political figure as they come.

The problem isn’t that CBS sold the spot to Focus on the Family. The problem is that the anti-life crowd is losing the messaging war. It’s possible to talk about celebrating life without politicizing it. It’s easy to sell pictures of happy families and babies. How many mothers have ever publicly said they regret choosing life? Compare that to the numbers of women who regret having an abortion. Life is the positive. Abortion is the negative.

How do you sell abortion? It’s almost impossible to talk about abortion or “choice” without involving polarizing politics. The images are always of angry women protesting and holding signs. What’s their alternative? Pictures of aborted babies that highlight the truth of abortion?  The anti-lifers are losing this issue. Poll numbers prove it. It explains why anti-life feminists lose it when Focus on the Family celebrates life with Tim Tebow and his family, or Sarah and Bristol Palin are on the cover of a tabloid.

Abortion is still legal in this country. Even though Roe vs. Wade is a horrible judicial decision (an opinion asserted by all sides) it’s unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future. However, every positive pro-life message, every Bristol Palin magazine cover, every photo of amazing neo-natal surgeries, ultrasounds or medical advances put another nail in the coffin of abortion’s public image.

“Choice” is abstract. “Life” is concrete and visual. Every time that you show that a fetus is viable and valued, from medicine science news to Lacey Peterson laws, it hurts the public perception of abortion.  These images don’t affect laws or legal precedents, but they expose the fraud that the “choice” crowd continues to disseminate. That’s why they focus on “choice.” As soon as you focus on a baby, you lose the debate.

As the “choice” debate unravels, it shows that the only difference between a premature baby getting the best neo-natal care and an aborted fetus is desire. If the “planned” or “wanted” pregnancies are the best justifications for abortion, these groups are in trouble. That’s a flimsy excuse for murder, and an extremely brutal murder at that. If abortion was re-created outside of the womb to kill a person, it could only be described as gruesome and barbaric. Why do we continue to do this to the most helpless members of our society? Since it’s hidden and only happens on the inside of women’s bodies, not many people understand how brutal the abortion medical procedure truly is.

Medical science is on the side of life. Rather than spending millions to defend abortion, why don’t these groups work on educating impoverished women on birth control or help them earn an education? (I wish more pro-life groups did the same.) All sides should make abortion the absolute worst-case option. There’s enough money and nonprofit infrastructure to make abortion unnecessary in our society. The problem is that feminists need it to survive.

The simple matter is that abortion and all “attacks” on it are cash cows for groups like NOW, EMILY’S List, Feminist Majority and NARAL. Without us pesky pro-lifers, the money stream from supporters would dry up. These groups need to manufacture crises in order to survive since public opinion and the progress of science is against them.

The pro-life side will always have supporters due to our religious faith and the issues of euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning. Our side is evolving. The abortion side is dying. The writing is on the wall for abortion supporters, and that is why their reactions get more hysterical and ridiculous. They ought to be thankful to Focus on the Family for giving them a something to protest since “women’s issues” have become little more than arguments over botox taxes, middle-age columnists regretting not getting married and having babies and debates if Lady Gaga represents feminist ideals.

*Why is the special needs community not more outraged at abortion? Only 10% of special needs children are born, which reeks of eugenics and is a borderline holocaust for this community. What does our society reflect when we only allow the desirable and perfect to be born?

On Twitter a number of people asked my opinions of Going Rogue, and I promised a review. Honestly, I doubt that I could say anything original. Overall, I enjoyed it. I felt like the last chapter was rushed and was a mixture of everything that she wanted to say and couldn’t fit in elsewhere. It’s a stupid attack to say that it Palin didn’t cover policy issues. Palin wrote an autobiography, not her plan to change America. She also writes extensively about energy and oil — the most important issues in Alaska. However, the one theme that stuck out to me was Sarah Palin and her faith.

US News and World Report finally published the first review of her book from the faith perspective. If anyone else has written on her faith, I’ve missed it.

Though most of the talk surrounding the release of Going Rogue revolves around how it affects Palin’s standing as a political figure, including her chances of winning the White House, should she choose to run, the book is as much poised to heighten Palin’s profile as a Christian leader. “It’s a mistake to frame all this in the context of her potential candidacy,” Mark DeMoss, one of the country’s top Christian media specialists, says of Going Rogue. “She wants to tell her story and the story of her personal faith journey.” At a time when politically conservative evangelicals lack a national figurehead, Palin’s ability to connect with them could also deepen her appeal to a key part of the Republican base. “Christian audiences could respond to this like they did when George W. Bush talked about his faith,” says John Green, a religion and politics expert at the University of Akron. “This community takes faith very seriously and likes people who talk about their faith journey.”

For the record, I am a Christian and started my relationship with Christ when I was four.* Hence, as a person who shares the same faith, my views of the book come from this perspective. Anytime a well-known figure writes about his or her faith, the media tries to find an angle behind it. A person can’t write about a relationship with God because it’s a crucial part of his or her existence but because he or she is trying to court a demographic or change public opinion.

When it comes to Palin, I get the impression she’s just writing about her journey with God.

To those who have not experienced a personal encounter with God, this is absolutely impossible to understand. Faith requires, well faith. It can’t be understood unless you believe and have experienced it yourself. It simply can’t be analyzed. If you are a Christian, your relationship with God is the single most important thing in your life. Everything else revolves around it. Your decisions, your actions, your thoughts — everything stems from your faith. If you are a Believer, it is impossible to write your memoirs without including your personal relationship with Christ. It’s more important than oxygen to our existence.

Hence, it is ridiculous to analyze Palin’s faith as an attempt to become an Evangelical leader, assume the mantle of James Dobson or get the Christian vote.

US News also covers how Palin’s faith affected her actions and political views:

Until now, that part of Palin’s story has been mostly implied. As John McCain’s vice presidential running mate last year, she generally avoided talk of her faith and its influence on her politics. But word of her decision to carry her pregnancy to term despite knowing her son Trig would be born with Down syndrome was an inspiration to antiabortion activists, mostly Roman Catholics and evangelicals. News that Palin’s unwed teen daughter Bristol was pregnant and would give birth had a similar effect. “[The Palins] should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values,” Focus on the Family’s James Dobson said at the time, “but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances.”

I’ve seen a number of people attack Palin for writing that her first response to discovering she was pregnant was how easy it was to get an abortion. Why? She believes it’s wrong, but it’s still human nature to consider the easiest way out when faced with a dilemma. The “Christian” course of action is to realize that those actions are wrong and choose the course of life. Christians are just as human as everyone else and make mistakes, as evidenced by Bristol.

I had always admired Palin because she was a conservative women who reflected my views. After reading Going Rogue, my respect for her grew because I recognized a fellow Christian trying to live out her faith in a very public sphere. I would like to get the perspective of a liberal Christian’s views of her book. Would you respect Palin more as a fellow Believer or do politics still cloud opinion?

*I always hesitate to write about issues relating to faith. Once you expose yourself as a Believer, you get attacked anytime you deviate from the stereotype of what is “acceptable” as a Christian from both Christians and non-Christians. You also get written off as an uneducated nutjob or hick (i.e. Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock) . Frankly, writing about your faith is a hot mess, and I try to avoid it. However, it is impossible to write about Palin’s faith without responding as a fellow Christian.

One unfortunate side of the punditry and blogosphere is the endless dissecting of pop culture for deeper spiritual, political and societal meanings. It happens every time there’s a blockbuster movie, hit song or TV show. Among Christians, Harry Potter has been a divisive issue. Apparently, New Moon of the Twilight series is that way to feminists. Is Twilight that bad, or is it targeted because the author is a conservative Mormon? When compared to other examples in Vampire lore, the feminists are on shaky ground.

Over at Fourth Wave Woman, I’ve written about the left’s attack on Stephanie Meyers and how it seems to be a front for an attack on conservative Mormonism. Then, I ran across a post by Sarah Seltzer at RH Reality Check on how to get over Edward Cullen in four easy steps. Seltzer compares Twilight to other vampire series, namely Buffy and Sookie Stackhouse.

Unlike most of the articles about Twilight that I’ve read, I agreed with a few points, especially the first one. However, the author fails to note that all of the romantic interests of the highlighted vampire series have major issues. As a fan of all three, I deeply disliked the main love interests. Angel (Buffy) and Vampire Bill (Sookie Stackhouse) are just as creepy and controlling as the despised Edward Cullen from Twilight.

Years after the series ended, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the paramount modern feminist heroine. This is despite her weakness for a controlling and domineering vampire boyfriend  in the case of Angel. I loved Buffy because she was a short, blonde who kicked butt and wore cute clothes. I always hated that she was so entangled with someone like Angel.

In all three examples,  I always preferred the alternate love interest (Spike in the case of Buffy, Eric in Sookie Stackhouse and Jacob in Twilight). Unlike the romantic lead, these men/vampires/werewolves respected the heroines and proved steadfast. Angel, Vampire Bill and Edward Cullen all leave the main characters in the lurch. It’s up to the other guy to always pick up the pieces and inevitably rescue the heroine in her time of need. In fact, if feminists are going to fault Twilight, they need to fault the wider vampire oeuvre. Within the pages of fantasy and vampire lore, sexism is rampant, and the heroine is generally in love with a dark, handsome…jerk.

(more…)

One of the biggest issues arising out of the socialist revolution, passage of the health care bill in the House was the Stupak Amendment, which barred federal funds from going to abortion. It was a shrewd move by the Democrats to appease the pro-life Blue Dogs. In the aftermath of the bill’s narrow success, conservatives were left wondering, did the Stupak Amendment win the abortion battle but lose the health care war? This gets into the nitty-gritty part of politics. In any defeat, there are always a slough of “what ifs” (like if Jack Ryan didn’t like sex clubs would Barack Obama have won his Senate seat in 2004?) This is a topic that bloggers and graduate students will debate for a long time.

I’ve seen a lot of ire aimed at National Right to Life, particularly for releasing an advisory announcing that they would score “nay” votes for the amendment as opposition to life. This is an extremely difficult situation, and I don’t think that there is an easy answer. The Stupak Amendment created a dilemma that conservatives don’t see quite as often as liberals: party politics vs. issue politics.

National Right to Life is not a partisan organization. While the vast majority of their membership  and likely most of their staff probably vote Republican, they don’t owe any allegiance to either party. Their duty is to ensure that the mission of the organization is carried out and not to toe a party line. In fact on their mission statement page (what a horrible web site!) they explain:

(more…)