Greetings to my fellow soldiers in the “war on women.” You did know that you all are engaged in this war, right? If you think unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected by law, you are supposedly waging a war on women.
Abortion is the least regulated invasive procedure in the country. Many states do not require that women be fully informed about the abortion procedure, its potential risks, or alternatives – something required for every other medical procedure performed in this country. If you think abortionists should have to give this information to a woman before she makes that irreversible life or death decision, you are waging a war on women.
Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in America. They perform more than 300,000 abortions each year. Almost half of their billion dollar annual income is derived from federal, state, and local grants and contracts – taxpayer dollars.
Planned Parenthood is not content to just have women walk through their doors. Some Planned Parenthood facilities are now offering so-called “webcam,” or telemed, abortions. Rather than meeting the abortionist in person, a pregnant woman sits in a Planned Parenthood office in one city and talks to the abortionist long-distance via computer. The abortionist is able to push a button on his computer that opens a drawer in the room where the woman is seated. Inside that drawer is the chemical cocktail that will kill her unborn child.
Chemical abortions are a two drug process: the first is mifepristone–RU486– which kills the developing human being in the uterus; the second is a prostaglandin that expels the dead child.
RU486 itself is a dangerous abortion method for pregnant women– 14 women who used RU-486 have died in the United States since 2000, according to the FDA, and thousands of women have suffered complications. If you do not think an abortionist should be able to prescribe a chemical abortion via webcam, you are waging a war on women.
Unborn babies at 20 weeks gestation can feel pain. To date, seven states have banned abortions on babies who can feel pain. If you think that babies who can feel pain should be protected from abortion, you are waging a war on women.
Just last month, the United States House of Representatives voted on a bill to ban abortions because of sex-selection. President Obama and his pro-abortion allies opposed the bill. A disproportionate number of babies killed because they are “the wrong sex” are girls. If you do not think unborn baby girls should be killed merely because they are girls, you are waging a war on women.
In fact, if you think there should be any limits on abortion whatsoever, you are waging a war on women. At least, that is what our opponents want the country to think. The bottom line for abortion advocates is making sure that abortion remains legal, for any reason, with no limits whatsoever. Somehow, the unborn child became the enemy that must be sacrificed at all cost.
If you have any concern for the unborn child, if you show any interest in limiting abortion in any way, you are waging a war on women.
I’m a farm girl. There are probably a few colorful words I could use, but I’ll just say– hogwash.
The so-called War on Women was started as an effort to tar and feather pro-life conservative Republicans in a feeble effort to reinvigorate President Obama’s campaign. Proponents of this strategy are hoping to turn American women against Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, but it’s not going to work.
Because we can turn it right back on them. We know abortion proponents do not care about the unborn child. But quite frankly, I do not believe they care about women. Making sure that abortion remains legal is more important to them than how abortion affects women, how it changes women, how it hurts women….
Prescribing a chemical cocktail to a woman who is 100 miles or more away, with the abortionist not being there to help in case of complications, is not pro-woman.
Refusing to give pregnant women basic information about pregnancy and abortion, and wanting to rush her through that procedure before she can change her mind, is not pro-woman.
Opposing even common sense legislation that requires abortion facilities to meet the most basic health and safety standards for medical clinics is not pro-woman.
This spring, the California State Assembly considered legislation that would allow non-physicians to perform first-trimester surgical abortions. For those who think abortion should be “safe,” how does reducing the required standard of care help?
We heard last night about the horrors facing women in China with that country’s forced abortion and sterilization program. Where are the abortion advocates who say they care about women? Why aren’t they fighting to protect the women in China?
I really don’t see anything pro-woman about anything they do.
And their candidate, Barack Obama, marches in lockstep with them.
That is why I am so happy that we have a pro-life candidate that we can work for and elect in November. I am proud that National Right to Life has endorsed Mitt Romney for president of the United States.
On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast. As the country’s most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win.
We know about the dire consequences of Obamacare. This law will enshrine abortion and rationing of health care in our society for generations to come if it isn’t stopped. And it will be stopped by electing Mitt Romney and a pro-life Senate and House.
Let’s review President Obama’s abysmal record on life.
On his second day in office, January 22, 2009, President Obama issued a statement reaffirming his commitment to defend the Roe v Wade ruling, which gave us abortion on demand. On his third day in office, he overturned the “Mexico City Policy” so that hundreds of millions of our tax dollars would be given to organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas. Our tax dollars are given to organizations that go into heavily pro-life countries in Central and South America, and Africa, and are used to lobby against the current pro-life laws in those countries.
Another of Obama’s early acts was to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to the tune of $50 million. His budget request for 2013 includes $39 million for UNFPA. Under President George W. Bush and his pro-life predecessors, U.S. funding to the UNFPA was cut off because that agency’s involvement in China’s population-control program, which relies heavily upon forced abortion. Forced abortions
among women who violate the one-child policy in China are commonplace and sometimes carried out up to ninth month of pregnancy. They can be so violent that the women die along with their full term babies.
Last summer, Vice President Joe Biden went to China and gave a speech in which he stated that he wouldn’t “second-guess” their population control program, that he “fully” understands it.
When I heard this, I thought, “We need to introduce this man to the Wizard of Oz, because he needs a brain, a heart, and a backbone.”
President Obama authorized taxpayer funding of research that requires killing human embryos.
Last spring, the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill to permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortion. Prior to the vote, the Obama administration attacked the bill and threatened to veto it if passed. He wants our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for the killing of unborn children.
President Obama indicated he would veto the entire federal spending bill – forcing a government shutdown – rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
In February 2011, the Obama Administration rescinded a regulation that had been issued by the Bush Administration, which would have protected health-care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions.
And earlier this year, the administration decided to define which religious liberties they will allow churches to exercise. Religious institutions are being told they must pay for health insurance plans that cover contraceptives, contrary to their religious beliefs and consciences. And they won’t stop with birth control—ObamaCare establishes a new section that deals with “Preventive Health Services.” Under this section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) may mandate that most health plans cover any service “with respect to women” that constitutes “preventive care.”
President Obama declared that contraceptives are now a mandated “preventive care” service. What is to stop the administration from adding abortion to the list of preventive services that must be provided? Mitt Romney will stop them!
And if you had any questions about where Barack Obama’s loyalties lie, or who his allies are, he has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and EMILY’s List.
While some would like to call into question Mitt Romney’s pro-life position, let me state clearly and emphatically, “Mitt Romney IS pro-life.”
I want to hit that straight on. We know that several years ago, Governor Romney said he would support pro-choice laws. We don’t try to hide that, and neither does he. But people change.
Many years ago, a governor signed a permissive abortion bill into law in California. Some years later, Governor Reagan became President Reagan and was a wonderful pro-life president. His administration gave us the Mexico City Policy and was the first to cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund. He brought to the attention of the American public, the fact that unborn children can feel pain, and much more.
About the same time that Ronald Reagan was signing pro-abortion legislation in California, an abortionist was helping to develop strategy to undermine pro-life laws around the country. That man, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had performed 60,000 abortions, became an eloquent and forceful advocate for unborn children, giving us chilling videos in The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason.
The pro-life movement is growing because we change hearts and minds. In 2007, Governor Romney described the decision-making process he went through when dealing with embryonic stem cell research. He wrote, “When I was governor of Massachusetts, my state wrestled with the stem-cell debate… I carefully listened to all sides, and came to reject the idea that the exploration of stem cells had to come into conflict with America’s commitment to the dignity of human life.”
Unfortunately, some members of Congress with pro-life voting records weren’t able to come to that kind of clarity when faced with destroying new human life.
Mitt Romney believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. During the primary debates, Mitt stated, “In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.”
Those sentiments, of course, have our opponents bouncing off the walls. After an interview, during which Mitt again expressed that conviction, NARAL issued a statement. “If there was any doubt that Mitt Romney would be an anti-choice president, that doubt should now be gone.” (Anti-choice, of course, meaning pro-life.) They continued, “This is not the first time Gov. Romney has expressed his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned… And as president, Romney could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to make his dream of overturning Roe v. Wade a reality.”
Here is the statement Governor Romney released on January 22 of this year:
“Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.”
When Mitt Romney expressed his opposition to tax funding by saying that he would get rid of Planned Parenthood (meaning, federal funding of Planned Parenthood), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee immediately sent an e-mail to its supporters and raised more than $218,000 to hold Republicans “accountable for their War on Women.”
The Hyde Amendment prevents the use of federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions through Medicaid programs. Mitt Romney supports the Hyde Amendment and opposes using our tax dollars to subsidize abortion in any way.
Governor Romney believes ObamaCare, which will open the door to federal subsidies for abortion coverage and rationing of lifesaving medical care, should be repealed. He has stated, “I will repeal Obamacare.” He has also said, “If I’m president, we’re going to stop Obamacare in its tracks.”
He has also stated that, if elected, he would reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City Policy which prevents federal dollars from going to organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas.
Yesterday, David O’Steen, our executive director, was asked by a reporter from the Washington Times what we were going to do, following the supreme Court decision on Obamacare. His perfect answer was six words long:
Defeat Obama. Elect Romney. Repeal Obamacare.
We look forward to Mitt Romney’s election as our next pro-life president on November 6th. And on January 20, in 206 days, we will be celebrating the inauguration of a new, pro-life president.