Gloria Feldt's delusional rant

Just days after stepping down as president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Gloria Feldt is enlightening us as to exactly why pro-abortionists were dealt such a stinging blow on Nov. 2 – it's all John Kerry's fault.

Tapping into some of the anger she apparently never exhausted while overseeing the destruction of more than 1.3 million unborn children over the last eight years, Feldt chastised Kerry for his unclear abortion rhetoric during the presidential campaign.

"I have great respect for John Kerry, but there's no question he did not articulate [abortion] issues well," Fedlt told The Associated Press, blaming the Massachusetts senator for ceding "the moral high ground to the other side" and for confusing voters by appearing "equivocal" on the abortion issue.

Feldt's remarks couldn't have come at a more fitting time. In the aftermath of the Nov. 2 thrashings, Democrat politicians are desperately searching for a new approach to hot-button social issues like abortion. They are increasingly uneasy with spouting strong pro-abortion rhetoric, knowing full well that Americans are quickly beginning to see through the pro-choice façade. In all but the bluest states, Democrats are being forced to reframe their abortion talking points if they hope to have any chance of winning future elections.

But that rhetorical revamp is not sitting well with the abortion industry. There is a growing rift between the "ground forces" of the pro-abortion movement (i.e., those who have such fondness for abortion that they watch tapes of the procedure in their leisure time) and the Democrat politicians who have to deal with abortion's political fallout.

Hence the Democrats' recent discovery of religion. Out-and-out pro-abortion statements are no longer marketable to the majority of Americans, so the Democrats are attempting to couch their rhetoric between Bible verses and sanctimonious oratory about how important faith is in their lives (but it wasn't worth mentioning until you asked, thank you very much.) Even Sen. "Citizen" Clinton is catching on. At a Boston fund-raising dinner in January, Hillary told a group of religious leaders that she has "always been a praying person" and cast a decidedly moderate pose by saying support for faith-based groups is perfectly constitutional.

Bluntly put, the latest political moves by the Democrats are nothing more than an attempt to put one foot in each camp on social issues like abortion. They pontificate about respecting the pro-life view and express their commitment to making abortions as rare as possible. Some, like Kerry, even go so far as to admit that life begins at conception. But peel back the rhetoric and look at each Democrat's core and you will see a fierce loyalty to the pro-abortion political position.

Therein lies the problem with Madam Feldt's explanation for why the American people rejected so many pro-abortion candidates during the last election. Despite what the "upperlings" at Planned Parenthood would prefer to think, their movement's paltry showing at the polls wasn't caused by weak rhetoric or John Kerry's inability to string together a series of non-contradictory positions. To the contrary, Kerry and Edwards comprised the most pro-abortion presidential ticket in our nation's 230-year history. Americans understood the pro-abortion position perfectly well … and they rejected it.

Our nation is tired of being one of only six countries in the world that place no restrictions on abortions, as pointed out by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Gloria Feldt and her ilk are having difficulty coming to terms with that reality. They are so deluded with the myth of America's pro-choice majority that they must blame election losses on the candidates rather than the moral failings of abortion. They never ask why most Americans feel more comfortable with pro-life candidates, nor why science and morality are working in tandem against them. Why? Because the answers point to a reality they refuse to come to terms with: Abortion is a losing issue.

Democrat politicians realize this. They are beginning to offer up a "light" version of their abortion rhetoric in a plea for conservative votes, while continuing to support abortion on demand in America. But a cooled down approach to abortion doesn't sit well with Gloria Feldt and her abortion allies, who view the procedure as the greatest thing since individually wrapped cheese slices.

That's where the tender spot lies between Democrat politicians and the abortion industry, and the wound won't be healed until both groups get a grip on why pro-abortion candidates lost so many races during the last election.

Particularly among the younger generation, our nation is no longer buying the lies peddled by Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Instead, we are adhering to a truth that instructs us in the blessings of building a culture of life. That truth leaves no room for the pro-abortionists, and their industry is destined for the sad ash heap of history.

Hillary slowly slithers to the right.

The question is ---in light of the resounding 2004 Values Voters Victories---how "conservative" will Hillary get?

Clinton recently proposed moderating the Democrats' position on abortion (snicker).

OTHER UPCOMING HILLARY REVISIONISMS: "I hate men who cheat on their wives" "Vast right wing conspiracy? What Vast right wing conspiracy" "Baking cookies is my fave after-work activity"

Hillary's mighty busy with her Campaign 2008 Extreme Makeover. She's got four years to make people believe she's Mother Teresa.

Let's see. After she opens a charge at Wal-Mart, enrolls in Divinity School, and gets a lifetime membership in the John Birch Society, she'll need to get a shopper's card at Sam's Club, and schedule daily morning prayer services in her Senate office.

And just to cover all bases, Bill will take an anti-adultery pledge in the vestibule of the National Cathedral, when Hillary takes her minister's vows.

Oh, and Hillary will campaign wearing the official DNC apron, and give cookie-baking demonstrations while on the stump, and pose with an aresenal of firearms while engaged in target practice.

We must start educating Americans to the savagery of legal abortion. One huge misconception about Roe v Wade: most people believe that the court decision was based on the viability of unborn life, and that the court examined all of the existing information, then decided there was no viability, so abortion should be legal.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have had to force newspaper editors to retract editiorials on this aspect of the USSC decision.

The court based its decision on the fact that since religion and science could not decide (up to that time) when life begins, they didn't have to, either.

Roe author Justuce Harry Blackmun wrote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

It appears the Roe Court (or some of them) actually believed that it wasn't possible to determine when the life of a human being begins. But, by not resolving this factual issue, the Court left unresolved the legal question regarding the rights of an unborn child. So, the need to provide an answer to that question is inescapable.

Cutting edge millenium technology offers proof positive that life begins at conception. The issue of when life begins is no longer a difficult question. Scientific and medical evidence proves, without doubt, that human life begins at the moment of conception and that the child is a complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being from the moment of conception throughout gestation.

Since 1973, advances in technology have allowed us to obtain new information about human life on a molecular level. This information resolves all doubts that abortion is the act of killing a human being and that this tiny human experiences pain even during early gestation.

At the time of the Roe v Wade decision, abortion was completely illegal in 33 states except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The remaining 17 states allowed abortion in various circumstances. The most permissive, New York, allowed abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, though New York did not allow third trimester abortions for "emotional health" as required by the Supreme Court.

In recent years, the abortion right has been extended to partial-birth abortions (sometimes termed infanticide) so that a perfectly viable child in the birth canal, in the process of being born, can be aborted in a most gruesome way, if the mother so chooses.

FemiiNazi idealogy is famously written into the USSC decision.

Thanks to FemiNazis, the unborn child has literally no protection in the womb, and is considered fair game by any and all saline/suction-wielding abortionists.

FemiNazis made sure that Roe v Wade made the "Right to Choose" paramount. The mother's rights over the womb are absolute.....up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

Another wrongheaded aspect of Roe v Wade might be remedied with legislation by the Congress certifying that the unborn are "persons."

The USSC decision specfically states that under the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, the unborn child is not considered a "person" and therefore has no legal rights under US law (14th Excerpt: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof......").

Roe v Wade author Justice Blackmun wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" and are not entitled to constitutional protection until birth.

Here, Blackmun was informed by tenets of the Jewish faith, and other faiths, who teach that life begins at birth, not in the womb.

However, the official right-to-life position is that life begins at conception.

Pro aborts insist that US laws built on religious beliefs infringe on their constitutional right of freedom from religion, yet they rarely if ever mention that the Roe v Wade concept of life beginning at birth is a religious belief.

Ironically, a decision that was intended to wash religious beliefs from the law of the land is, in fact, based on someone's religious belief.

From:

Gloria's Blog
The Latest
January 25, 2005
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/globlog/main.xml

"While most Americans acknowledged gratefully the 32nd birthday of Roe v. Wade this Saturday and Planned Parenthood affiliates all over the country engaged in three Days of Action to call attention to the threats to Roe and the importance of who sits on the federal courts, the extremist anti-choice minority demonstrated in protest.

Apparently, many of them held signs that read, "Women Deserve Better."

I agree. Women do deserve better.

For the past three decades, anti-choice ideologues have been chipping away at the foundations of Roe. Hitting hardest at the poor, the young, and the weakest among us. In many ways, Roe is just a ghost of what it was in 1973.

"Without access, legal abortion is meaningless," writes Laura Kaminker in a recent article. The financial and legal hurdles, and the limited availability of abortion services in many areas, mean that, for a large number of women, Roe v. Wade is an empty promise.

She speculates on the true motive behind the restrictions on Roe:

"Women must jump through hoops and over hurdles before they can terminate a pregnancy. These laws run the gamut of idiocy, from 48-hour waiting periods, to parental consent and notification for minors, to mandatory 'counseling,' which often involves coercion.

"These laws assume women are incompetent, irresponsible, and unable to make their own decisions. They also expose the anti-choice 'abortion is murder' argument for the smokescreen that it is. If abortion was murder, these types of laws would be anathema to the anti-choice crowd: what good is delaying murder? However, if one's goal is to control women and punish them for having sex and getting pregnant, then these laws make perfect sense."

Women deserve better. Women deserve to be trusted as moral decision makers. Women deserve access to necessary reproductive health care.

Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid introduced the "Prevention First Act". This bill will expand access to family planning services, ensure comprehensive medically accurate sex education, end insurance discrimination against women, promote emergency contraception, especially for sexual assault survivors, reduce the rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, and reduce the need for abortion among women of all ages. This should be a no-brainer. The vast majority of Americans see nothing controversial whatsoever in contraception and strongly support family planning. This law would reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions, all while protecting women's lives.

Do women deserve anything less?"

They just SO don't get it! Roe v. Wade was a sham, railroaded down our throats on lies, lies and more lies.

Abortion, as a MEDICAL procedure was LEGAL in ALL 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade allowed abortion on demand for any reason. It's become a birth control of choice for some families or single women. It just infuriates me that these nutcases have been able to feed us this line all these years.

Thank you God for turning the tide!

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.