“The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act passed by a vote of 241-183.”
When the revolution comes I look forward to those 183 sick bastards being put up against a wall and then aborted by a firing squad.
It all boils down to killing kids.
45 years later, infanticide is essentially as legal as it was the day Roe v Children came down. Nice that the gop thought to pass legislation that’ll nibble around the edges and save a few kids, but the horror continues apace. At this rate we’ll see infanticide made illegal in, what, maybe 150 years?
Actually, I’m more hopeful than that. We’ll see infanticide become illegal about a month after the last “clinic” closes for lack of business. So Maybe a generation or two.
Politics is a scam and we’re suckers for playing
Very sick people.
One must remember that the Progressive/socialist ideology, relies on a demand for population control. Socialism requires that concept. If a reader doubts it, just do a little research.
“Ideas have consequences.”
The “idea” of socialism lies at the core of the Democrat Party’s cultish and oppressive Progressive ideology; and, for socialism to work, then, population must be restrained. See below:
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library— http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/MckyT/mckyPL2.html#The Impracticability of Socialism — “A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation,” edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson’s essay, “The Impracticability of Socialism”:
Note the writer’s emphasis that the “scheme of Socialism” requires what he calls “the power of restraining the increase in population”—long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
“I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a ‘proletariat,’ and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
“I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the ‘ne’er-do-wells’?
I.45
“I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day’s length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
“Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove.” EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Killing a born baby is not abortion. Leftist b!tches want to be able to kill the baby that results from a “botched” abortion, because the presence of the baby is too embarrassing.
Feminazis are afraid that taking away their de facto right to kill the born baby will lead to them losing their precious abortion.
Name the DEM Baby Killers! Name them all!
They are the party of evil....and we are a nation of evil because we allow it.
They have argued that they don't know when a child in it's mother's womb is a human being so it is OK to kill that child. There isn't any such argument that can be applied to a child that has exited it's mother's womb. It is legally a person. To kill a baby already born is unequivocally murder.
ad in when te senate votes and it wll be around 230.
I saw a bumper sticker once that said *It’s easy to be pro-abortion when you’re not the one being killed.*
I thought it got the message across pretty clearly.
It gives the aborting woman a pass.
They are sickos, and watch out, if they are ever in power where they can’t be taken out like in some of our blue states.
November! Vote for the party that wants to kill babies, shut down the government, and keep importing voters so that your vote will be even less relevant. Yup. We’re the party that’s on your side, and on the side of all that’s right and decent./s
Apparently, George W. Bush wasn't a 'sitting president'. Perhaps he was standing when he addressed the March for Life. That's OK ... Donald Trump was standing, too. Both of them were at the White House when they addressed us.