Planned Parenthood Abortion Activists Hate Ted Cruz and Scott Walker the Most

The Planned Parenthood abortion business is running a new poll for its abortion activists to determine which of the pro-life Republican presidential candidates and potential candidates they hate the most. Apparently the pro-abortion stalwarts at Planned Parenthood are not fans of Ted Cruz and Scott Walker.

The abortion business couches the poll in it’s typical “pro-woman” phraseology, designed to shield itself from abortion and make it appear pro-life candidates hate women, never mind that Planned Parenthood aborts hundreds of thousands of baby girls every year and kills and injures their mothers in abortions. Here’s how it asks the question:

The pro-abortion activists at Planned Parenthood hate Cruz and Walker the most, with Bush, Rubio and Huckabee rounding out the top five. All of the candidates and potential candidates the abortion giant listed are pro-life and support the 20-week abortion ban the House recently passed, that Planned Parenthood opposed.

Over at TownHall, pro-life writer Cortney O’brien found it surprising that Planned Parenthood would include pro-life candidate Carly Fiorina in the list of pro-life candidates who supposedly are anti-woman. This, of course, proves that Planned Parenthood is about supporting pro-abortion women and not the majority of women who take a pro-life stance.

How can one organization be so blind? Better yet, how can we give millions of taxpayer dollars to it every year? In perhaps their most stunningly stupid campaign yet, Planned Parenthood just asked its supporters to vote for who poses the ‘Worst Threat to Women’ in the 2016 presidential campaign. Of course, the poll includes only GOP candidates, yet what may be a bit surprising is the fact they included Carly Fiorina on the list. Fiorina, in case you didn’t notice, is female.

Fiorina is a successful business woman who earned her way to the top at Hewlett-Packard, becoming the first female to be named CEO of one of the top 20 companies in the US. In other words, she is someone who does not shy away from power – you’d think women’s rights organizations would want to place her on a pedestal.

Oh wait, she’s pro-life. No wonder our country’s biggest abortion giant views her as an enemy. Heaven forbid she champion the rights of unborn children.

If any woman was going to be placed on a ‘biggest threat’ list in next year’s presidential campaign, perhaps it would be Hillary Clinton. Not only is she an extreme pro-abortion supporter, reports have revealed that women were paid only 72 cents to every dollar men made when she worked in the US Senate – and let’s not forget The Hillary Tapes.

A couple of years ago, on a FR forum related to current government abortion policy, "livius" posted: "This is worse than before. What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program." - livius

That observation was and is pertinent to any discussion of the unbending coercive position "progressives" insist upon on whenever the matter of abortion is discussed.

Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.

Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."

The following excerpt has been posted on FR previously; however, its conclusions are pertinent to this discussion:

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:

"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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.