A Gun That Should Be Banned

No, I have not altered my belief in the Second Amendment.  But somehow I don't think the Founding Fathers had this contraption in mind.

Look at the "business end" of it.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is an intra-uterine device, commonly known as an IUD.  Read this Lifenews article for some background behind this hare-brained gizmo.  Can any sane woman conceive of this thing being crammed into her interior?  The feminists liked to screech about the "hanger"; do they cotton to this?  As far as their "safe, legal and rare" mantra goes, all they really care about is the "legal" part.  They are utterly callous towards the young baby (this thing is abortifacient) and obviously care diddly-squat about women.

Virginia's Common-Sense Laws A Factor In Closing Abortuary

The Washington Post, mouthpiece for the baby-killers that it is, let loose with its screed entitled "Virginia's Assault on Abortion Claims a Victim".  The hysterical wording implied that a human being died as a result of the law.  Au contraire!  The lives of human beings will most likely be saved!

The "width of doorways" had everything to do with the
added trauma that this woman suffered!

The editorial starts off with this rather telling denial of fact claiming that "at abortion clinics.. the width of doorways..(has) little to do with the health of patients".  Note - to see prima facae evidence of the lunacy underlying that lie, take a gander at the photo to the right, of a woman being carried out of a.the width of now-closed Birmingham abortuary - because they couldn't get a gurney through the doorways!  They had to carry her down a dilapidated staircase and through a trash-filled ally!


The "victim" in this sorry excuse of an editorial is - was - Hillcrest Clinic of Norfolk VA.  The only reason it closed, apparently, is because the owners were too cheap to bring their chop shop to minimum standards for safety.  They did perform surgery, did they not?  Were they not interested in making abortion (surgical procedure) as safe for the women as possible?  Why were these so-called "champions of women" not willing to meet these standards but to even go beyond them?  But no, they balked and shut their doors.  And we are not complaining one bit.  Good bye, Hillcrest, and good riddance!  May many more hell holes suffer your fate!

Planned Parenthood's African Strategy!

Remember how all the so-called "pro-choice" crowd were knotting their knickers trying to convince us that they wanted to make abortion "safe, legal and rare"?  Why, just five years ago, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood), in their Guttmacher Policy Review of Winter 2006,  published an article along those very lines - it's their lead article in fact.  If you look on the first page, second column, the bottom of the first paragraph says "it is suggested abortion can be reduced by 95%..."

Given that, we all will be pleased to note that such lofty ideals are being implemented!  For instance, let's take a look at the IPPF-Africa Region's Strategic Plan for the years 2010-2015.  On page 7, we see some lovely little charts!  From the left, look at the third bubble down, second one toward the center.  See how it says that Planned Parenthood anticipates an 82% decrease in abortions?  Yippee!  Oh, joy!  It sounds like Planned Parenthood really is living up to that laudible goal of reducing abortions.... Uh, wait a minute!   Is it ever so possible that I misread that report?  My bad!  It looks like "decrease" is really "increase"!  How very peculiar!  How does an "82% increase in abortion services" make abortion "rare"?

If you detected a note of sarcasm when I waxed lyrical about the "decrease", you are quite correct.  The Guttmacher 2006 piece was nothing more than damage-control gobblygoop.  Planned Parenthood was simply being a bit more up-front in their 2010-2015 strategy.  Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Texas, revealed in her book "Unplanned" that the PP higher-ups had always pushed for increases in abortions, as that brought in the most money (a goodly portion of that money coming from our tax dollars).

It's rather interesting that we're seeing Planned Parenthood tip their hands in their strategy for Africa.  Margaret Sanger, foundress of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed racist and eugenics promoter.  Her motto was "more children from the fit, less from the unfit".  While Planned Parenthood has done little towards implementing the first part of that motto, they certainly do take seriously the second part.  Why, just take a look at the cover of the 2010-2015 report.  The mother, with babe in arms, is being given a fistfull of condoms.  I suppose it hasn't dawned on the Planned Parenthood personnel to give moms like that some baby formula or diapers.  What are they saying about their priorities here?  When they talk about "rare", what they want "rare" is babies!  Make no mistake about that!

Oh, by the way.  Should either of those reports "disappear", please advise and I will make them "reappear".  I did save them to my hard drive; you may wish to do the same.