As the Un-Aborted Celebrate Forty Years Of Aborting...

I have already observed, on several occasions, the professional lefts efforts to perpetrate a prevailing media narrative about the sorry state of higher education, the "crumbling" mental health apparatus and our inadequately funded alcohol awareness and treatment programs.  They are doing this to fertilize the budgetary soil for the necessary tax and spending increases required to (they would argue) help alleviate the growing injustice of under-educated, alcohol abusers, with a side order of mental health issues, that only an increase in state-managed taxpayer dollars can possibly resolve.

Well I am here to help.  With one wave of my blogging wand I will "educate" the people on how we can reduce the prevalence of "mental health issues" and "alcohol abuse" in the Granite State (or anywhere), without more spending or taxes, all the while mocking the motley cabal of un-aborted, specula-wielding, would-be-tax-increasing left-wing harpies and their policy-cuckolded camp followers, who have been celebrating four decades of "legally" clawing defenseless unborn children out of women's wombs.

Let me begin by quoting,..um......me.

A recent study published by Great Britain’s Royal College of Psychiatrists (H/T Alveda King Blog) includes data collected from 22 studies, conducted over 14 years, involving over 887,000 women, of which at least 166,831 had abortions.  The results? Eighty-one percent of women (81%) who have had abortions suffer an increased risk of severe mental health problems.

The report is quoted as stating that

 "…post-abortive women are 37% more likely to suffer depression, 110% more likely to engage in higher alcohol use, and 155% more likely to engage in suicidal behavior. "

(The entire post can be found here.)

That is some extensive, I believe the left calls it Science.  It suggests that by supporting and promoting abortion the left is effectively increasing the odds that more women will need counseling, be at risk for alcohol abuse, and prone to suicidal behavior.

(/war on women)

The solution?   Seeing as one doth beget the other, we could reduce the number of women who might find themselves suffering from mental-health issues, alcohol abuse, depression or suicide by suggesting alternatives that reduce or eliminate the need or number of abortions.  This would then save taxpayers money by requiring less of our wages (which Democrats demand we use) to pay for abortions on one side and (fewer or lower taxes Democrats demand to pay for) mental health and alcohol abuse issues on the other.

I told you I was here to help.  Spending cut, taxes lowered, women and children saved, and less government.  Where'd I leave my cape?

I'd hint at some other preventive measures regarding the culture but most of the leftists will not have been able to see past the bit about "the motley cabal of un-aborted, specula-wielding, would-be-tax-increasing left-wing harpies," and will be too busy penning retorts on their spittle splattered keyboards to have even gotten to the bit where another one of their ideas is to social policy what ditch digging is to Keynesian economics--except that the ditch they are digging is tax-payer funded abortion and the ditch they are trying to fill in is taxpayer funded social services to repair the fragile remnants of the psyche's of women who fell for the lefts obsession with abortion.

And look! There's the headline for the rebuttal: "Right wing misogynist calls women a bunch of ditches."

Who says I don't reward those who read on to the end?

All we need now is for the Democrats who swear on the graves of over 50 million aborted babies, that they really do care about women's health, to step back from the murderous false-freedom of abortion and the donation dollars and support that go with toeing the liberal line, long enough to ask themselves if they really do give a damn or if it's just about the politics.

And actions speak louder than lies.

You are reading  "As the Un-Aborted Celebrate Forty Years Of Aborting…"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Planned Parenthood to Abort ‘Pro-Choice’ Label

Who says you can’t teach old abortionists new tricks?

It took years for Planned Parenthood to realize that “pro-choice’ wasn’t holding water for the majority of Americans because in the vast majority of cases, those advocating the “pro-choice” position showed disdain for those “choosing” NOT to have an abortion and they did nothing to encourage that choice.  They appear only to advocate for and promote one “choice” so it’s hard not to see through the hypocrisy of the label and see abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood for what they are:  pro-abortion.

Might I suggest the term “Climate Change” instead?

“Rather than selecting a new term to replace ‘pro-choice,’ Planned Parenthood hopes to move beyond such terms entirely and present abortion as something too complicated to be divided into two sides,” reports Anna North.  The question is, will newspapers and television news follow their lead and come up with more “nuanced” description for abortion advocates as well?

And Climate Change is already taken, right?

The musician formerly and now presently known as Prince, very briefly defined himself as an unpronounceable symbol.  Maybe Planned Parenthood could create an obscure unpronouncable image to define what abortion is that way they don’t even have to talk about it.  They can just widen their eyes slightly and give the knowing nod as if to say…you know what we mean.

Om.

H/T Larry O’Conner / Breitbart.com

You are reading  "Planned Parenthood to Abort ‘Pro-Choice’ Label"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

And You Were Worried About Bag Fees?

by Steve MacDonald

A woman was kicked off a plane for wearing a shirt that read, “If I wanted the Government in My Womb I’d F*** a Senator.”

There are plenty of things wrong with this. First, it assumes that the Senator in question would be both male and adequately equipped to achieve the implied destination.  While many Senators, regardless of gender, could be considered big (you know) as an insult, that does not automatically translate to human anatomy.  In fact, if the goat-entrails of the anecdotal collective consciousness are correct, the bigger the (you know) insult, the smaller the real thing actually is.

Senators also tend to lack ba**s, so this seems like an accurate analysis.  Viability of the “swim team” is a matter of detail we’ll pass on for now, but I will add that Democrat John Edwards “boys” were still swimming when he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife which suggests that the womb is achievable regardless of the size of your…constituency…at least for an Ex-Senator.

We also have here a woman who is not just sexist (Senators in this scenario must be men), but must also be a statist.  Her concept of government interference begins and ends in Washington DC.  Yes, I have to presume that she means a US Senator.  If they were a true believer in Republicanism and State Sovereignty they would have taken the time to add “State” in front of Senator, or more likley would be wearing a shirt on which the word Womb would be replaced with the word Ass.  But this is clealry a woman who would travel all the way to DC to have the “government” interloping in her womb.

Then there’s that whole stay out of my womb sub-culture whose roots come from the EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood, League of Women Voters, National Organ of Women, all abortion all the time, and while we’re at it, you’d better pay for it groups.  This is pay to play without the play, unless–according to the charming lady in the T-shirt with the word F*** on it–you happen to be a sitting US Senator.  This suggests that this person also promotes or expects Senators to be on the take and that this is the best way to get the government involved in your issue.   The irony of that is too vast to explore at this time so back to the Wombistas.

This is the kind of ignorant thinking that get’s your womb over-regulated by the HHS department of Childless Family Services in unpleasant ways you never imagined–just ask the Chinese.   And the chasm of ignorance  is vast.  The same sort that wears T-shirts with the words F*** and” my womb” on them, who are not a porn star (though they could be), are the same voting sluts that demand the government act as their prevention pimps at taxpayer expense.  And there’s the rub.  You can’t demand the government finance anything related to your lady parts and expect them to not take an ongoing interest in their investment.  In fact, that is how the government goes about the business of taking control of things, be they banks, car companies, small businesses, education curriculum’s, highway spending, bike paths, health care systems, or wombs.  A point I just made three weeks ago here.

Before the government can legally take other people’s money and spend it, even if its on traffic in and out of ‘your vagina’ they have to pass a law.  You need a law to support taxpayer funded abortion, a law for taxpayer funded contraception, and other laws for whatever else it is about your vagina that constitutes “women’s health” and “human rights.” So you should be finding new places in your vagina for more laws not less.   And not to scare “Don’t Tread on my Uterus” but every law requires scores of bureaucrats to write relevant rules and manage the regulations, implement them, and even enforce them, which will turn your vagina into a Law library and result in a uterus that has not only been thoroughly trampled on but will need to lease out space for the ever-expanding bureaucracy.

The Senator is just a facilitator.  He’s not even going to call you after, except perhaps for a cash donation to his re-erection campaign. (That was intentional).  And not that you’ll listen but if you don’t want the ‘Government’ in your womb, stop inviting them in.  They are like vampires.  Say yes once and they keep coming back until they’ve sucked you dry.

So should they have kicked someone this ignorant off the plane for the words on her T-shirt when, after all, they could have asked her to change it or cover it up?   Yes.  People this confused should not be allowed to fly in the passenger compartment.   We should treat them like the fruit or exotic animals people try to sneak in from foreign countries.  The risk of a disease spreading like wildfire after landing could incapacitate the entire nation for years.  Crap.  Too late.  That’s what happened in 2008.

Well, think of it as containment then.  No point letting things get worse.  We’ve actually go a shot at starting to turn this death spiral around.  And no, it’s not free political speech to wear those particular words on a T-shirt in public when there are plenty of others that will get the job done; it is just bad manners.

You are reading "And you were worried about bag fees"  by Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com.(Home)

Vulnerable Teenage Girls

On the matter of parental notification legislation, the Nashua Telegraph, in reprinting (as a guest editorial) the left wing blathering of the Concord Monitor, has just reassured sexual predators who want to abuse young girls in the state of New Hampshire that their secret is probably safe.

"But consider the rights of vulnerable teenage girls whose fear of confiding in a parent or a judge – perhaps misguided, perhaps chillingly justified – would keep them from seeking help at all."

If this is a reasonable argument for a pregnancy derived from consensual sex between minors, then what are the odds the same vulnerable teenage girls will confide in anyone about non-consensual sex, or any form of sexual abuse or predation where fear of harm if the abuse is revealed is a given?  Are liberals trying to tell us that vulnerable teenage girls can't help but be chatty with strangers about being sexually abused but not with their parents when the pregnancy is from consensual sex?

This begs the question, does the current law (where consent is not required) hide the greater threat to the health and safety of vulnerable teenage girls and what is the trade off the Democrats have made at their expense?

Up to this point the democrat/pro abortion mantra has been that there is just too much at risk if an underage girl gets pregnant. But that's clearly not the case.

As discussed here just a few weeks ago, the threat is not what the left and the media would have you believe.

..according to the CDC, from 2000 to 2007, (2007 is the last year data was available) among the top ten causes of death for girls age 13-17 in New Hampshire--those ages that would be affected by that horrible parental notification requirement--there are no recorded deaths due to pregnancy or complications from it.

So is there a greater threat to the health and safety (including mental health) of 'vulnerable teenage girls' from sexual predation? Yes.

According to the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence there were 302 reported cases of sexual violence against children (Ages 0-17) in New Hampshire, in 2009.  That's "reported."  Given the "fear of confiding" rule set out by the liberal press how many more cases go unreported and how many of those result in pregnancies whose origin a vulnerable teenage girl is not required to reveal to anyone at all?

The risk and threat of abuse is hundreds of percentage points higher, every year, than the risk of death or sever injury from pregnancy alone.

So with little or no evidence of risk from actual pregnancy, and significant statistical risk that we would continue to hide sexual abuse of minors, a John Lynch veto of the parental notification bill (complete with exclusions and exceptions) will hide cases of sexual abuse of teenage girls, seeing as they are not always prepared to open up about that sort of thing.

I guess the Democrats would rather risk the very real problem of unreported serial sexual predation by putting the government between parents and children than to ask girls who make mistakes to first consult with parents about a pregnancy from which they have almost no need to fear, short of a lecture and perhaps some embarrassment.

So who is really looking out for vulnerable teenage girls again?  It's not democrats and it never was.

 cross posted

 

Is Pregnancy Still John Lynches "Exception" To Parental Notification?

Prior to being against parental notification, John Lynch was happy to lie to his constituents about his position.  His dishonesty is evident (when compared to his real world opposition) in this letter from Governor John Lynch, dated December 2006, to a New Hampshire resident who expressed some concerns about his honors position on Parental Notification. 

Dear (redacted)

Thank you for sharing with me your thoughts on New Hampshire's parental notification law.  I share your belief that the health and safety of New Hampshire women, no matter what their age, must be our first priority.

As Governor, and as a father, I believe parents should be involved in these important decisions.  But we must also recognize that there are cases where that is not possible-and we should not risk the health and safety of young women in those cases.

  Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do no hesitate to contact me with your ideas or if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,
John H. Lynch 

-emphasis mine-

(Click here for a pdf of the actual letter)

The Teflon John assures us (12/2006) that abortion must be an option, but that parents have some right to be involved.  But the "exception" to parental notification up to this point has been pregnancy. Parents have been completely excluded from “these important decisions," by Governor Lynch and the New Hampshire Democrat Party.

But Mr. Lynch no longer has his democrat majority legislature to protect him from his own words.  And the Republican lead New Hampshire House and Senate have just passed another bill (HB 329) that meets the Governors 'stated' objectives.  They have passed it with veto proof majorities.

Given the facts 'on the ground' will pregnancy continue to be the "exception" to parental notification in John Lynches New Hampshire or have parents earned the right to have a voice in what happens to their underage daughters? 

Or will Governor Flynch cave to New Hampshire's pro abortion Democrats, his own state party leadership, the pro-abortion gay lobby, unions, and the abortion lobby itself, all factions who prop him up with money and votes; does he dare veto the bill and contradict himself again? 

The legislature has crafted the bill you asked for.  Will you sign it, or were you lying to the parents of New Hampshire?  And if you are lying, how do you intend to hide it this time?

(Portions of this article first posted 6/25/2010)