By DEXTER DUGGAN
Planned Parenthood says abortion empowers women, but the unending bloodletting wasn’t powerful enough to save the short-lived presidency of its head Leana Wen, MD, who took over last November but whose womb-kicking assignment didn’t survive as long as the full course of a pregnancy.
As permissive abortion faced new resistance from some state legislatures and the Trump administration, the PP board that surprisingly pushed Wen out prematurely on July 16 reportedly didn’t think she was taking the proper path to ensure the organization’s political success.
But was it really Wen’s fault that she couldn’t package the mass slaughter that has edged into infanticide attractively enough in the public arena? Or had PP executives just been so fooled by its salivating media adorers like The New York Times that they actually thought they had an appealing menu to market?
The firing was a drastic exhibition of PP’s vulnerabilities.
National conservative columnist Quin Hillyer didn’t weep over Wen’s departure. Hillyer told The Wanderer on July 17, “Good riddance. Too bad the whole organization didn’t fire itself.”
For public imagery, of course, abortion’s champions prefer the abstract instead of reality.
When the far-left Netroots Nation’s political activists held their 2019 convention in Philadelphia in July, they had an opportunity to relish a demonstration of abortion and how easy it allegedly is. Not aborting an actual baby, of course, which could offend sensibilities, but using a watermelon representing a uterus, from which a “baby” supposedly was extracted.
Did they get technical direction from women in late pregnancy who’d said it felt like they were carrying around a watermelon?
Hey, remember when Dad took you along to buy a cold watermelon down the rural road, and the farmer plugged it for you so you could sample the ripeness? No different at all from abortion! Right? Right? Hey, pay attention! Stop looking down at your feet!
Actually, Philadelphia wasn’t a good choice as a location to push the abortion war. It was, after all, the home of convicted newborn-murdering abortionist Kermit Gosnell, MD, as well as belligerently pro-abortion Pennsylvania state legislator Brian Sims, whose harsh hectoring of pro-life females outside an abortuary embarrassed himself in May.
As far on the fringe as it may be, Netroots Nation thinking is where national Democrats have positioned themselves. A few of the party’s presidential candidates for 2020 showed up at the Philadelphia gathering
A fascinating vignette occurred there when one of the candidates, former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, declined to hold an activist’s delightful-looking baby girl named Mia.
As some audience members sounded displeasure, Castro explained he didn’t want to give the infant a cold by being “the typical politician” and holding her after he’d been “shaking a million hands.”
Castro’s explanation sounded logical, but it also seemed predictable that people coo over a little baby and stand up for her if they think she’s being disrespected.
This is what seems to be people’s innate disposition, to come to the defense and care of helpless babies, whose cuteness compensates for the time and trouble they necessarily require.
Yet this very gathering celebrated gutting a watermelon “womb.” Indeed, were a conservative woman to stand up at such a convention and suggest protecting Baby Mia from being poisoned or torn apart only a few months earlier, she would be howled down far worse than Castro, whose error was declining to cuddle the infant.
Inflicting a cruel death on a defenseless preborn baby somehow perfectly fits their political agenda, but declining a lullaby just a few months later incites their distaste?
What caused their disconnection from reality? Their perception was poisoned by the drip-drip-drip of propaganda over recent decades.
Not so long ago, even pro-abortion Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House tried to evade blame by saying they favored only “safe, legal, and rare” abortion. But unrelenting pro-abortion indoctrination and disinformation by dominant media, as well as those media conferring respect on pro-abortion radicalism, produced a dangerous transformation.
Not for the first time during the intentional deformation of conscience in a society, the unthinkable became thinkable, even mandatory among the politically correct. What supposedly would have limited application when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized nationwide permissive abortion in 1973 was soon transformed into networks of walk-in abortion clinics, and thereafter even emerged into infanticide.
The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates seem to think the more extreme they go to favor abortion, the more pleasing they are at least to their own party. Yet Michael Wear, a former aide to Barack Obama as president, actually was given space in The New York Times to remind them how badly out of step they are. Wear had served as part of Obama’s faith-based initiative and on both of his presidential campaigns.
Wear, a Democrat, posted at the Times on July 13 that “Democrats used to express great offense if Republicans described them as the party of ‘abortion on demand.’ Now, Democratic candidates seem happy to leave the impression that their party is just that, often justifying their position by suggesting it’s a direct result of listening to women, communities of color and those with low incomes.
“Here’s the problem: They don’t speak for these communities when they appear to support abortion on demand,” Wear added, pointing out: “The candidates use similar rhetoric to argue against restrictions and requirements like mandatory ultrasounds, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges, and mandatory waiting periods, all of which have majority or near-majority support among women, communities of color and the poor.”
Even the most extreme sort of advocate for permissive abortion, like the late abortionist Bernard Nathanson, MD, co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, showed that a complete change of mind is possible as he became a strong pro-lifer, so the possibility lurks that even today’s Netroots Nation watermelon-pluggers could do a drastic conversion.
Meanwhile, the expelled Dr. Wen elicited distaste from both sides, not only the Planned Parenthood side that found her extremism insufficiently effective politically.
Cruel Actions
On July 16 conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard tweeted over the irony that Wen, a native of China, seemed remarkably unaware “that her entire life was possible only because her parents chose life when tens of millions of her fellow sisters were being aborted by their parents in order to have a boy under China’s brutal one-child policies.”
But in another tweet, Querard held out hope for Wen. He wrote, “To take the gifts God gave you and turn them to the advancement of Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion mill? What a shame. Of course she then loses the job because she’s not rah rah pro-abortion enough for the PP board, so hopefully her eyes will open someday soon.”
Other people’s tweets also tweaked the Netroots abortion enthusiasm. For instance, “Neoliberal Federalist” commented: “I will never understand why the inhumane butchering of an unborn child is considered a human right, and one worth celebrating at that. It’s not about religion, at least for me, it’s about opposing cruel actions of brutality.”
When tweeter “Roo” said that “outside the abortion debate, in most contexts, we treat life as beginning at birth, not beginning at conception or beginning at viability,” “SkyePuppy” replied, “No we don’t. Our endangered species laws recognize and protect the eggs (which contain the pre-hatched/born fetuses) of species such as bald eagles, sea turtles, and the like.
“We can’t even disturb the eggs, let alone kill or remove the fetuses,” SkyePuppy added.
At least give Planned Parenthood’s board credit for a merciless consistency. If it decides it conceived an error, it “kills” its very own kind.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress