The #TexasWomenForever Baby-Killer Democrat Online Fund-Raising Flop

Posted on Comments

Last night, I noticed Amy Kremer of Tea Party Express having this discussion with someone on the #TexasWomenForever hashtag:

At the time, I didn’t realize what was happening: Sarah Silverman and Lizz Winstead were headlining a show in New York that was promoted (at the Web site LadyPartsJustice.com) as an online fundraiser for “The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Texas Equal Access Fund, Whole Woman’s Health, and Fund Texas Women.”

Alison Turkos, one of the chairs for the New York Abortion Access Fund’s board of directors, explained to ThinkProgress that there’s much more work to be done to ensure that women of all income levels can access the abortion care they need. Federal and state laws restricting taxpayer funding for abortion currently prevent millions of women from using their own insurance coverage to pay for these procedures.
“In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need abortion funds because everyone would have health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Unfortunately, we don’t yet live in that world,” Turkos noted. “Abortion funds are critical resources — the right to abortion is meaningless if it is impossible to afford the actual procedure.”
The telethon, which will be hosted in front of a live audience in New York City, will be streamed on Lady Parts Justice between 7:00 and 10:00 pm EST. The four organizations that will be benefiting from the donations — The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, Texas Equal Access Fund, Whole Woman’s Health, and Fund Texas Women — will also be hosting the video feed on their own sites.

Translation: “Give money to kill Texas babies!”

Twitchy was all over this Skanky Liberal Baby-Killer Show:

Liberal comics, giant vulva
raise money for abortions in Texas

Sarah Silverman auctions off #VagNapkin

No, they are not making this up:

What’s going on here is simple: Texas passed pro-life legislation this summer limiting late-term abortion and Democrats (who are fanatically devoted to killing Texas babies) decided to make the most prominent pro-abortion Democrat in the state, Wendy Davis, the poster girl for their 2014 mid-term election campaign.

Seeking to replicate the “War on Women” theme of Obama’s 2012 campaign, and likely previewing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign message, Democrats nationwide are pumping money into Texas and hyping the rhetoric of “women’s health” — a theme coordinated with the “community organizing” groups getting millions of federal tax dollars as “Navigators” to sign up people for ObamaCare. That may seem crazy to you or me, but I remember a few months ago it seemed crazy that Terry McAuliffe could beat Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia this way.

As fun as it is to laugh at left-wing kooks, it’s not funny at all when the kooks win elections. Texas Republicans — and especially pro-life Texas Republican women — need to get active, get loud, get organized, and make sure they beat these baby-killing Democrats next fall.

 

163 comments

  1. So, you believe you should be making decisions for other women about whether or not they should give birth or carry a child? There’s really no other argument except that.

  2. So, LibertarianOne, do you oppose foetal homicide laws? If pregnancy is nothing more than a choice and the State lacks the right to defend unborn life, then why can men like Scott Peterson be given the death penalty for a double homicide?

    Logically, Peterson should have been charged with murdering his wife and removing her choice as to when to carry a child; the latter crime would be a lesser-included offense of the former crime (as killing someone necessarily ends their reproductive decision-making); so he should have only bee charged with one murder, not two.

    Right?

  6. The other argument is that women are achieving their ends by KILLING their babies – babies that, in 99% of circumstances, were conceived via voluntary intercourse.

    I’m not running around inseminating women via turkey baster, which would be forcing them to carry babies. I’m just asking that they not achieve their goal of being not-pregnant by killing their existing babies.

  7. If it were only a woman’s body, she wouldn’t be pregnant. Biology 101.

    Incidentally, when do you think that YOU came into being?

  8. That you think Cuccinelli is a “bible thumping statist” says that you don’t really pay attention and/or think that Terry McAulliffe is a good source of information.

  9. I was thinking the same thing. But my right to keep and bear arms is considered to be subject to hoops and jumps these people not only would not countenance for abortion, they insist abortion should be provided gratis.

  10. I shall put this in very simple terms. There are only two institutions which create stability among human interactions: The State and The Family. Conservatives wish to strengthen the latter and weaken the former. The social issues you disparage are necessary to that end, and in fact, do more more to strengthen individual liberty than the anarchy which you envision as some sort of nirvana. If the State supplants the family, then its interference with your individuality increases exponentially. It’s as simple as that.

  14. Those rights in the Declaration are endowed by the Creator. Libertarians like those rights just not the Creator. Not sure where they think they come from. But judging from the libert’s I’ve seen running for office, a tight logical worldview is not a requirement.

  15. Assclown (I am being quite kind here): In the woman’s body but not the womans body. The “mass of cells” being discussed is a human being deserving of life. If the woman didn’t want a baby, she should have constrained her activities to prevent pregnancy (a consequence of sexual activity, not an occurance outside the woman’s control, rape excepted).

  16. Which is why I believe that “Libertarian”One is not a Libertarian. Or libertarian. Just a a leftie trying to shame conservatives using a false front.

  22. It’s just like I make the decision to prosecute a murderer for the murder victim I never met. I can understand that we disagree on whether we’re talking about killing a person or not.

    Why can’t you? Are you really as stupid as you come across?

  25. So we’re not allowed to fight anything destructive because it’s “only a moral crusade”? Libertarians are adolescent fools. Grow up.

  26. The real arrogance here is the fact that your type does everything to avoid the real question – the child’s future. Like it or not, it is a human child from the moment of conception. As a result, it isn’t about just the woman. Your Libertarian streak is about a 100 miles white and very small fraction of an inch deep. It’s all about you, and nothing else. None of us are islands.

  27. You don’t get to decide “end of story,” especially when you’re dodging heaps of scientific evidence that says the baby is an individual.

  31. I know men who told their girlfriends to get abortions; the girlfriends didn’t and raised the kid. Then the “sperm donor” shows up a few years later and wants to be a dad. If I was the kid, I would call that man a murderer every time I saw him. Hell, I might even threaten to kill him myself if he ever tried to play the “daddy” card on me.

  34. “What’s the difference between abortion and killing a newborn?” What Kermit Gosnell did was no different than an abortion. He just did it out in the light of day and it shocked people. Murder is murder… even if you shoot your victim in a dark room.

  35. Yeah, people are all shocked when teenage moms leave their newborns in dumpsters, but they’re just following the “logic” of abortion that they’ve been indoctrinated with their whole lives — likely by the, now distraught, grandmother. “What’s the diff? And it’s free.”

  36. I’d be more sympathetic toward the libertarian views if only children didn’t exist. But, alas, they do, so libertarianism has a huge gaping hole in its philosophy.

  38. Right. It’s only civilized to behave oneself in front of children. But libertarians aren’t interested in civilization; they’re interested in just letting the chips fall where they may – even when we know damn well where the chips will fall. (Porn is a perfect example. We KNOW it’s dangerous and addictive, but, hey! To try and contain it is “moral,” so forget about it!)

  39. Wait, I’m confused. I asked a question based on biology; you said that I was a religious zealot; I pointed out that this was a biological question; now you’re changing the subject.

    Why not answer the question that was based on biology – i.e. girl babies have their girl parts by nine weeks of gestation?

  42. According to LibOne’s “logic”: Baby born prematurely at 7 months is protected. Regular baby not born yet is not protected at 7 months.

    Such foolishness almost gives me whiplash.

Comments are closed.