New at Live Action: Vox Declares Even Abortion Exceptions “Major Human Rights Problem”

There’s been a lot of talk about abortion exceptions lately, mostly in the form of abortion defenders brainstorming to figure out the best ways to turn them against pro-lifers.

Usually it’s as simple as “they oppose any exceptions because they’re extremists who don’t care about women,” but they also have a backup narrative. At Vox, Emily Crockett attempts to argue that instead of concessions pro-life politicians have made to pro-abortion fears, for which pro-choicers should be grateful and reciprocate with concessions of their own, “these exceptions are actually a major human rights problem.”

Give pro-aborts an inch, and they’ll bludgeon you with it for the rest of your days…

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Cecile Richards Equate Abortion “Rights” with Fight Against Racism

Last week we covered Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’s condescending non-answers to pro-life students attending her speech at Georgetown University, but it turns out that wasn’t even the most outrageous highlight of the event. No, that would be the part of her speech when she said:

Our history with race in America is something that we all have to address, including Planned Parenthood. It’s important that we understand our collective history and the legacy that it leaves on those that are still living in an unjust system. Lack of access to healthcare and reproductive rights is a result of many factors—race, gender, sexual orientation, geography and immigration status. In order to build true equity in America we have to address it all.

Yes, that’s the president of the country’s largest killer of minority children comparing her side to the fight against racism.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Raw Story Hypes Planned Parenthood Employee’s Profanity-Laden Rant

Without accurate facts and superior reasoning to vindicate their position, the pro-abortion media often finds itself having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for morale boosts.

On Friday, Raw Story’s Tom Boggioni provided a golden example of the phenomenon by gushing over how “awesome” it was to read a Portland, Oregon Planned Parenthood employee known only as Damien “smack down” pro-lifers in a Tumblr post (Tumblr sign-up required to read) and follow-up to critics supposedly illustrating the critical importance of the abortion giant’s work.

For those keeping score, profanity-laden rants that coddle pro-abortion biases and ignoring news stories that undermine the preferred narrative meet Raw Story’s definition of awesome; fact-checking reports before publishing them and accurately characterizing articles you’re criticizing do not.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Donald Trump’s Amendments to GOP Platform on Abortion Would Be a Disaster

If it wasn’t already clear that Donald Trump doesn’t really understand how pro-lifers think, he’s doing a bang-up job of reinforcing the point every few weeks. As Live Action News’ Danny David covered earlier, Trump said the following on the Today Show:

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: The Republican platform, every four years, has a provision that states that the right of the unborn child shall not be infringed. And it makes no exceptions for rape, for incest, for the life of the mother. Would you want to change the Republican platform to include the exceptions that you have?

TRUMP: Yes, I would. Yes, I would. Absolutely. For the three exceptions, I would.

GUTHRIE: Would you have an exception for the health of the mother?

TRUMP: I would leave it to the life of the mother, but I would absolutely have the three exceptions.

Pro-life activist Abby Johnson had some choice words in response:

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Pro-Aborts Freak Out After O’Reilly Hits “Health” Loophole for Abortion

Bill O’Reilly’s done it again. Pro-abortion bloggers are suffering conniptions over the Fox News host’s statements in the below segment the other night:

 

O’REILLY: If you are going to say that the two Democrats running for president both favor pretty much abortion at any time, for any reason, and they hide behind the women’s health issue, but that could be a migraine headache, you know. OK, I don’t want to have the kid, my boyfriend left me, my husband left me, whatever it may be, I got a migraine, kid is going to be born next week.

KIRSTEN POWERS: I don’t think that many people get abortions because they have a migraine headache.

O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It’s theoretical. When you have two candidates saying they don’t want any limitations, alright, in the law place, alright, they don’t want any. And that can happen. We know it happened in Kansas, did that big investigation on Tiller, you know it happened there. And so that’s so radical and so far away from what the American people want that that’s just one example.

Media Matters ran with it. Raw Story’s Arturo Garcia characterized O’Reilly as saying women will “make up migraines.” Ellen at Crooks and Liars said it displayed O’Reilly’s “naked hatred for women.” Megan C at Left Wing Nation asks, “Where’s the straight-jacket for this guy?” Fusion’s Taryn Hillin wails that he insinuated “women are somehow cavalier, weak, or lazy for choosing not to have a baby.” Joe Clark at If You Only News calls it a “sexist asinine abortion argument” that “will make you want to vomit.” And Sydney Robinson at The Ring of Fire oh-so-cleverly called him a “big pig” spewing “hatred and bigotry.”

That’s an awful lot of hyperbole when “we don’t understand the subject matter” would have gotten the point across just fine.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Planned Parenthood Doc Says Miscarried Babies “Were Never Alive”

Planned Parenthood’s preferred strategy in its campaign to dehumanize its victims is to simply pretend they aren’t there by talking as if women are the sole interested party in abortion. When that fails, the abortion giant’s fallback is attempting to pretend there’s simply no consensus about when life begins. And when that fails, Planned Parenthood has to get… creative.

Enter an editorial in Kentucky’s Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper by Dr. David Nash, who serves on the boards of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky and the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, in response to an earlier pro-life editorial by Dr. A. Patrick Schneider.

It attempts to discredit pro-lifers by explaining what “science really says” about personhood, but the only question it raises is: do they really let just anyone put an MD after his name these days?

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Guttmacher’s Defense of Deleted Pregnancy Data Falls Short

Last week, we highlighted Willis Krumholz’s Federalist article detailing how the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute appears to have dropped a 1994 data point from its materials on unintended pregnancy rates to obscure Planned Parenthood’s role in driving them up in the mid-1990s and falsely suggest its promotion of intrauterine devices was key to driving them back down.

Guttmacher spokesman Joerg Dreweke replied, claiming the data point was flawed, and removed to more accurately reflect the true rates. Now, Krumholz has answered the charge, defending his work and maintaining that Guttmacher still has some explaining to do.

While conceding the explanation deserved a mention in his original piece, Krumholz first notes an obvious reason why Dreweke’s cries of victimization are overblown…

Read the rest at Live Action News.

Bathroom Boycott-Mania: a Perfect Microcosm of Left-Wing Madness

As if we needed any more proof that liberals were pathetic sheep incapable of independent thought and unworthy of respect, just look at how quickly this transgender bathroom insanity became conventional wisdom on the Left that

The values of PayPal, Bruce Springsteen, and the fanatics, imbeciles, and scum that applaud them now include forcing women and girls to put up with men in their restrooms.

Never mind the entirely predictable result of straight male perverts exploiting the “enlightened” policy to try to snap pictures of women undressing.

No lightbulbs going off as to why these LGBT “heroes” can take this stand to boycott American states for requiring men to stick to male restrooms but have no problem doing business in countries where being anything other than hetero-normative is grounds for imprisonment and death.

Not a hint of self-awareness or shame about taking this as a grievous moral wrong while cheerfully supporting one of two presidential candidates who support the legal power to have your baby stabbed in the neck just months before he or she would have been born for the sake of convenience.

And yet these simpletons will still see no irony or hypocrisy in prattling on about how conservatives and Republicans are supposedly the ones perpetrating a “war on women.”

The Left is not a collection of equally rational, equally well-meaning people who have simply come to different conclusions about what’s best for the country. At best, these people are mentally unwell; at worst they are terrible people. If this swill of hypocrisy and moral blindness isn’t enough to finally wake the GOP up to the fact that they can’t reason with these people, nothing will be.

Rick Santorum Abandons His Own Principles to Endorse Marco Rubio

For a while in 2012, I enthusiastically supported Rick Santorum for president. He made some blunders that forced me to reevaluate his viability, and his blend of fiscal, social, and defense conservatism was largely obsolete this time around thanks to Ted Cruz, but I always retained a soft spot for Rick, thanks to him being a pro-life, pro-marriage champion, rock-solid on national defense, and having the strongest immigration record in the 2016 field.

Well, I’m sorry to say my respect for the man is gone for good, now that he’s decided to endorse Marco Rubio, and in doing so signaled that the values he’s spent his career fighting for aren’t so important after all.

During his latest (and hopefully final) presidential campaign, Santorum’s message was that he was the truest true conservative in the race, so much so that Cruz just wasn’t strong enough on same-sex marriage (the National Organization for Marriage disagrees) or immigration (Jeff Sessions, Tom Tancredo, and Steve King disagree) to measure up to him.

So what does he do once he drops out? Endorse the worst major candidate on both of those issues. Continue reading

Gee, Why Would Anyone Think John McCain Didn’t Support Reagan?

John McCain is throwing a hissy fit because Ted Cruz had the temerity to suggest that McCain didn’t support Ronald Reagan in his 1980 campaign. “It’s an outright lie,” McCain fumed to CNN.

Cruz’s actual comments weren’t as inflammatory as —he simply said in a speech, “Do you know if you define as a Reaganite anyone who supported Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primary, do you know that the Republican Party has never once nominated a Reaganite to be president since 1984?”—but okay, McCain was (tragically) among those nominees. McCain says he “worshipped” the Gipper at the time, but was prohibited from public endorsements prior to his 1981 retirement from the Navy.

I’ll take the Arizona senator at his word, but to hyperventilate that this was an “outright lie” or willful dishonesty on Cruz’s part requires one to ignore, well, everything else about McCain’s political career. Continue reading