Those on the pro-life side view the issue from the perspective of the unborn. Thanks to neo-natal medicine, it’s difficult to argue that life doesn’t start at conception or very shortly afterward. As I’ve written before, feminists are becoming more and more comfortable with the fact that abortion is murder. They just de-value the life of the unborn, placing the emphasis on the woman and her education and economic conditions.

It’s a sleight of hand to re-frame the issue since they’ve lost major ground on previous talking points. (i.e. reproductive justice, abortion’s cool!) The economic conditions and education of women likely to get abortion are still huge issues, but it is unacceptable to justify the premeditated termination of a life due to convenience.

But what about the condition of the unborn? Even if feminists are accept that abortion kills a living human, is it humane?

Many people aren’t aware that we have humane slaughter laws in this country. Passed in 1958, Congress stipulated that livestock should not unduly suffer when slaughtered. Animals do feel pain and these laws are right. For example, chickens are stunned before their heads are cut off at poultry plants around the country.

I’ve always wondered if we try to prevent chickens from experiencing pain at death, how come we don’t care about how cruel abortion is to the fetus?

Yesterday, a Red State post highlighted that Nebraska is debating banning abortion after 20 weeks based on evidence that a fetus can experience pain.

Even if you believe abortion should be legal, is it acceptable to barbarically terminate a life? If a 20-week fetus can experience pain, few would argue that abortion is horrific.

Whether it’s a D&C, saline or suction, how can you not acknowledge abortion is inhumane? Abortion isn’t a magic pill that makes the baby go “poof!” Most procedures are invasive to the woman and either cut the fetus apart, burn it alive with saline or suck it apart.

Remember that our society protects chickens from feeling pain, but not a fetus.

Based on precedent of humane slaughter laws and even capital punishment, shouldn’t we re-examine this as a society? Regardless if you think that abortion should be legal or not, commonly used abortion procedures are inhumane. It’s difficult to debate that fact.

(video H/T: Suzy B)

That’s right. Hate mail is the norm. For every example of hate mail or death threat that Democrats receive, there’s one made to a Republican. By racing to release the most hate mail, it only exposes the ugly side of humanity that draws angry extremists and incites more hatred and violence.

Anyone who works in politics or advocacy is familiar with hate mail. Every political/social movement has their crazies. There are people who show up at Tea Parties with Guy Fawkes masks, and there are people who show up at peace rallies calling for the murder of all Republicans. I’ve seen them. I used to work near the White House and would watch the anti-war protests during 2006-2008. There are scary, scary people in that group. It works both ways.

It’s ridiculous for Democrats to paint themselves as helpless victims caught in the cross-hairs of those crazy Tea Party people.  This is the party with a majority in Congress. They clearly have votes to pass controversial legislation. They have the House, Senate, White House and a majority of the governorships. Why on earth are the nice grandmas who hold protest signs at Tea Party rallies scaring Nancy Pelosi? Don’t believe me? Take a look at my photos from various Tea Party events. The normal Americans far outnumber the crazies. As I’ve said before, who is scarier?

Anti-war protesters

Kill the Bill Rally

Throughout the years, I’ve gotten lots of angry emails, phone calls and even the occasional death threat. It comes with the territory. Steny Hoyer and Chris Van Hollen should deal with it or get out of politics. As Eric Canter said this week:

“I want to stress this, and it’s very important: Legitimate threats should be treated as security issues,” Cantor said. “And they should be dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement officials. It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain. That is why I have deep concerns that some — DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine in particular — are dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon. Security threats against members of Congress is not a partisan issue, and they should not be treated that way. To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible.”

I was first introduced to the concept of hate mail and death threats when I interned for a Congressional member as a naive college freshman. Hate mail is such a common occurrence in Congressional offices that they have hate mail policies. As the lowly intern, I was the primary receiver of the angry emails and phone messages. I dutifully logged them in, wrote letters in response and reported the scarier ones to my superiors. I was also told the names and descriptions of the crazies who liked to visit and make threats in person.

Back in college, my College Republican chapter was featured in Indoctrinate U because one of our members was targeted with death threats and religious slurs. The campus progressive group also wrote “College Republicans are facists” on the wall of the humanities building on campus. I’m assuming they meant “fascists,” but the intent was clear. (I’ve never quite figured out what a facist is.) That spring, my car was also vandalized in broad daylight on a busy street because I had a Bush/Cheney sticker on it.

Over the years, I’ve gotten used to it. Between my blog and activism, I’ve been called a gun-toting crazy for wearing a Gadsden flag shirt on Pennsylvania Avenue and have deleted hundreds of comments calling me every name imaginable (B—h, c–t, s–t, etc.). While I’ve never reached the level of the these women, the hatred expressed towards conservative women for simply voicing our opinions is frightening.

When I worked for a conservative web site, I started noticing a pattern since we got such a high volume of hate mail. About 98% of the emails contained f–k as some part of speech, and most expressed their desire to see me, my boss and my fellow co-workers die (sometimes in violent scenarios). Most contained one or more of the following words: faggot, Nazi, pig, greedy, capitalist, fascist, radical, zealot, McCarthyist, pro-Israel, homophobe, war-monger, Brown shirt, hate-monger, extremist and right-wing fringe. Interestingly,  an overwhelming majority were grammatically incorrect.

I’m sure that liberal groups and bloggers get the same treatment. It happens across the spectrum.  If you are crying for Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer, or any of the other whiny Democrats, keep it mind that it happens to everyone. If you engage in the political arena, be prepared to be hated. Unfortunately, there’s an evil side to humanity, and politics draws those people from both sides of the aisle.

Some may scoff, thinking the pro-life community is dead. Remember that young people are more pro-life than pro-choice.

Also, the pro-abortion community has been vastly out-fundraised in recent years. That’s out-fundraised in years when there hasn’t been a major pro-life battle waged. The appointments of Sotomayor and Sebelius were the biggest ones in recent years. With Stupak there’s an element of betrayal that people will not soon forget. He made it personal.

The grassroots are out for blood. The RNC hit their goal of raising $402,010 in less than 12 20* hours and just upped their moneybomb. Last night on Twitter, people were practically throwing their wallets at anyone who was running against Stupak in MI-1. The path to November will be quite a ride.

Susan B. Anthony List quickly took back the “Defender of Life” award that was promised to Stupak at their event next week. The Susan B. Anthony Candidate List Fund president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the press:

“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”

National Right to Life:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The Family Research Council released the strongest statement I’ve ever seen Tony Perkins utter:

FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong today, and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote.

Americans United for Life have a blog post up explaining why Stupak’s Executive Order still funds abortion.

*I was wrong. The RNC hit their goal after 20 hours via TechRepublican.

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?

In hindsight, it would have been a good investment in protest attire.

FreedomWorks has issued a call for another protest on March 16 to kill the Obama healthcare bill. The President has declared that the bill must be through the House and Senate by March 18, so he can conveniently schedule a photo-op before he flies off to the Pacific.

Wouldn’t you hate for the overwhelming opposition of the American people to conflict with Obama’s tight schedule? How rude of us.

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.

That’s not exactly true.

The House Republicans have an interesting video debunking Obama’s claims.

Rep. Shea-Porter is playing into an argument that gender Feminists love to make: women are better at getting things done because we’re natural nurturers. Note what Shea-Porter says at the end: that women are better suited for leadership because they’ve taken care of mothers, mothers-in-law and other family members. None of the men in Congress have ever driven their mothers to a doctor’s appointment or changed a dirty diaper? None of them are concerned fathers or devoted husbands? That’s a rather broad stroke and a huge insult to the men serving in Congress.

This is playing into the “if women ruled the world” fantasy that Feminists articulate in their psychobabble academic papers and books. Their goal has devolved from empowering girls to give them the same opportunity as boys to now tearing down men so that women can assert their superiority.

It’s interesting how feminists talk out of both sides of their mouths. Women and men are equal, and gender is socially constructed unless the situation demands that women are more nurturing and willing to collaborate. When it is convenient to point out the softer side of women, feminists are quick to play the nurture or victim card. When feminists are attacking traditional roles or femininity, suddenly we’re back to “gender is artificially created by an oppressive patriarchal society.”

You can’t have it both ways.

It’s shameful that Shea-Porter is insulting her colleagues based on their sex. As Weasel Zippers points out, had a man said this,  most women’s groups would go ballistic. Sexism works both ways. Women can’t be victims nor can they be superior.

Equality is giving men and women the same opportunities. Equality is not achieving random quotas in society, such as the Shriver Report, which gleefully announces men and women have reached parity in the workplace. Equality has been achieved because women and men now have equal access to the same programs, jobs, opportunities, education, and so forth. Equality doesn’t mean that women must become equal in every single job or segment of society. That will never happen. The fact that women have the opportunity to decide for themselves is equality. Of course by carefully selecting the fields where there is a gender gap (such as STEM fields) gives women’s groups an excuse to stick around.

The Independent Women’s Forum also exposes another popular fallacy that Feminists take:

What bothers me about this isn’t just the double standard, but her implication that all these women-Republicans and Democrats-think alike because they are women and have therefore, of course, been family caretakers. She implies that the GOP women get it, and roll their eyes at all these silly men, who are derailing reform; GOP women are cajoled into voting no on health care reform, but really they know better.

This is going back to the meme from the nineteenth century that women will bond together because we share the same chromosomes. This has been proven wrong time and time again. After the 19th Amendment was passed the National Women’s Party believed that women would solidify as one voting block and take over government. There would be no wars, and all children would be fed and educated. Actually, even the movement for suffrage was marked by countless splits and debates. In the 1970s, feminists believed that women would bond together and demand that the ERA pass. In 2008, Hillary Clinton ran for president under the assumption that all women would vote for her in order to finally get a female in the White House. Even liberal women can’t decide what Feminism is and frequently call it “femininisms” because of the splinters in the movement. Every time this tactic is played, it fails miserably.

Stating that women will agree on something simply because we all have ovaries is demeaning. Men would never utter a something like this about fellow men. This view says women are simple creatures and should come together because we share the same anatomical parts.  The promotion of fellow women is more important than our minds, ideas, beliefs and philosophies. This is sexism directed towards other women, and it is wrong.

IWF also agrees:

Republican women lawmakers should be offended. There are many, many principled reasons to stand against what the Democrats are proposing (for example, see here). And it’s not just Republican lawmakers who reject Democrat proposals: women around the country don’t want a government take-over the health care system as this poll shows.

Somehow it remains okay politically to categorically insult male lawmakers, but in doing so Rep. Shea-Porter dismisses female lawmakers and all the men and women that these Members represent.

So despite that Republican women disagree with the health care bill because of massive government spending, an attack on individual liberty and the funding of abortion, women should vote on it for the sole purpose of showing solidarity? The call of being a woman is more important than religious beliefs or political views?

I’m also insulted that Shea-Porter pulls the stereotype of women going to the bathroom together. When male comedians use this as a punchline, women complain, yet a female Congressional member used it when addressing the House?

As Moe Lane at Red State put it:

162 years since Seneca Falls, and we’ve come this far.

Perhaps the Feminists should just get out of the way and let the conservative women lead. After all, we actually get stuff done rather than spending time whining about it and then spending millions of dollars analyzing the whining.

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:

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.

Issue politics are tricky. Victories often come at the cost of a political party or a key member. It’s never simple. In my opinion, National Right to Life did their job. It was likely painful for them as individuals, but they are responsible to their board of directors, donors and supporters to fight for legislation that defends life. The Stupak Amendment did exactly that. As a social and fiscal conservative, this was even hard for me to decide. Ultimately, I would have done what National Right to Life did. They were correct in focusing on the life issue, even at the expense of passing the bill.

I do worry if the Stupak Amendment will make it through to conference if health care reform passes in the Senate. I was in the Gallery for the exchange between Boehner and Rangel and have absolutely no faith that life will ultimately be protected.

We can discuss if Pelosicare would have passed without the Stupak Amendment, but does it matter? At the end of the day, National Right to Life and other pro-life organizations did their job. It was the fault of the Republican party and Republican House members for not doing a better job in presenting their arguments. Pro-lifers should not be blamed for the failure of the party.