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

  2. I have a question for you. As a libertarian how do you decide between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother? After all the mother in most cases made the voluntary choice to have unprotected sex, the child had no choice. Shouldn’t there be some personal responsibility on the part of the mother and within the libertarian philosophy at what point in the pregnancy does the child have his or her rights equally protected? If a child can live outside the uterus why are you giving more rights to the mother than the child? I am looking for an honest explanation of your particular libertarian viewpoint, as many libertarians are split on this point.

  4. Why not? The government is making decsions for me, they’re forcing me to pay for other woman’s abortions and birth control. Can’t you people do anything right? First you don’t know how not to get pregnant, then you don’t know how to take care of situations of your own making.
    Lazy to the max.

  5. I have a hypothesis. I won’t know how correct it is until I reach Heaven, but I believe there’s a lot of truth to it:

    Everyone who supports abortion is godless, as abundantly proved by a willingness to kill babies. Regardless of whatever scenarios, excuses and platitudes they offer to justify abortion, the real reason they support it is that they secretly HATE God. I’m convinced even the meekest, mildest ardent abortion supporter would gleefully murder Him if they could.

    Since they cannot kill Him, however, nor fully displace Him from their seared consciences, they can’t help knowing He is perfectly holy and pure. The deeper into sin they sink, the more brightly that condemning Light will burn in their souls.

    So what, in their darkened minds, is the closest they can get to killing the purest reflection of God here on earth, while at the same time deliberately outraging Him as much as they possibly can?

    Bingo. Kill the unborn, for any reason. The more babies die, the happier they are.

    In order to “kill” God one must of necessity play God. Killing people, particularly innocents, is the express up-elevator to godhood, in their depraved imaginations.

    In reality it’s only the express down-elevator to the Lake of Fire but they’ll discover that soon enough, lest they repent.

  6. So, you vote for the person who will most likely curb any all rights they deem fit to curb, and YOU say to US, “Word to the wise, people”?
    That’s absurdity to the max!

  10. Interesting thoughts.

    If you consider that the “Pro-Abortion” mob’s desire is to elevate the Self to the pinnacle of Creation, such that all is permitted and celebrated which accomplishes that goal, then it places the Self on at least an equal plain with God. Note, too, God sacrificed Himself, Incarnate as the Son, for the sins of Mankind because of His love for Mankind. What is the opposite extreme? Sacrificing one’s child for one’s Self because of the love of Self.

  12. Exactly so and well said.

    Ancient pagans at least had the excuse (such as it was) of fear of crop failure and starvation when they lay their shrieking babies in the red-hot hands of bronze idols. Some modern abortionists consider it a status symbol/fashion statement/badge of honor. Others consider it a joke. Both groups serve demons, but which is the more heathenish?

  13. My Niece gave birth yesterday prematurely to a boy who is very healthy and is going home tomorrow. According to LibOne, my Niece could have aborted the boy right up until 0600 yesterday morning.

  14. It’s long been said that in the minds of liberals and children, the history of the world really starts with them. Little that came prior is unimportant.

  15. Which is why I pray for the repentance and salvation of all those who are caught up in the cult of infanticide, and I shudder for the future of those who refuse to acknowledge Truth and repent.

  16. I must disagree, Jeff. I worked with Libertarians in the early 1980’s and there were many who felt that way.

    The Ideologue always feels a closer kinship to a fellow Ideologue, no matter the version.

  17. I’d love to see how far your head would explode if, say, privately funded abortions were outlawed and the only way to get one was if gov’t (meaning “taxpayers”) provided it, paid for it and logged it in their records.

  18. Not at all. I’d be cool with retroactive abortions, even.
    Can you use somebody else’s kidney without their consent? Their heart? Why only their uterus, I wonder.
    Meanwhile in an alternate universe in which dudes can get pregnant: abortion centers everywhere.

  20. An extraordinarily inane comment. You are too intellectually bereft to see the fact that your ham-fisted attempt at wit and offense (a twofer!!!!!) actually undercuts whatever silly argument you’re trying to make. Here you go. I’ll make it simple: Puppy mills are bad, ergo don’t breed lots of dogs. Abortion is also bad, ergo don’t engage in behavior which leads to conception.

    Thanks for playing. We’ve got a copy of “Aristotelian Logic For Dummies” as a nice parting gift.

  21. Kidney, heart and uterus — can you spot the difference? Oh, yes, a separate human being with her own rights can occupy one of those.

    Dude abortion centers all over the place? Because dudes just love having to financially support kids, just as long as they don’t have to gestate them.

    Lame thinking there, TTdn

  25. S/he decloaked as nothing more than a troll, and a very shallow one at that, with the “retroactive abortion” remark.

  26. So can somebody with kidney cancer. Go and donate your kidney today! You’ll survive that and only be slightly inconvenienced. Also let’s hope it goes to someone who has been in a vegetative state for… say… two months, sound right? They have so much potential.

  28. And, naturally, you attack the joke and don’t reply to anything else, typical, really. As you wish.
    Are pregnancies that limit the quality of life of the pregnant being only acceptable when we’re talking about humans?

  29. So you’re a Peter Sanger wannabe now? And please don’t feign umbrage at the response you received; your comment was juvenile, inane, a logically bereft.

    But for fun, I’ll assume you were making an argument in the guise of an idiotic one-liner. Let’s grant you the moral equivalence of a canine and a human, a proposition which makes no sense on its face for the simple reason that–stay with me here–dogs don’t have the capacity to reason or make moral judgments, or ask philosophical questions or demonstrate their idiocy in patently absurd blog comments.

    If you were half a wit, you would realize that your analogy fails because there is a difference between a human agent deliberately breeding an animal and a human who–again, stay with me here–voluntarily engages in behavior which she knows or should know can lead to conception, thereby creating yet another human agent. And given, that presumably you believe that humans have rights given that you wrap yourself in the language of rights, the question becomes where does the right to terminate the life of an innocent human agent originate?

  30. Alas, your attempt at biological analogies falls short as well. You might have an argument if there were such a thing a mammalian parthenogenesis but there is not. Try again.

  33. They always try to change the subject when they lose the argument. And you’re right, 500,000 young women are killed in abortion clinics every year.

  37. It is also a defenseless human’s body we are discussing, and if the state does not protect the innocent and defenseless, they are at the mercy of the murderous.

  39. I’m a pro choice republican, I see abortion as a necessary evil. What I don’t understand is why these women are so fanatical about late term abortions. I don’t want the “they’re evil people who enjoy it”. That is obviously not it. But I simply cannot come up with a rational defense of late term abortions except in extreme cases, yet all these progressives must have what they believe to be one.

  40. There really is no rational case for late term abortion. In fact, if people actually read the decision in Roe v. Wade, they would see that Powell’s opinion implies a State interest greater than the mother’s right to abortion the moment a child becomes “viable.” Given the advancements in fetal and prenatal medicine that viability line is is exponentially closer to the moment of conception that it was in 1972 (6 mos.), when the opinion was issued. The “extreme cases” you allude to really don’t exist either, inasmuch as in the very late term, maternal distress can be alleviated with an early c-section of a viable preemie and not by killing the child.

    As for other cases earlier in gestation, I’ve yet to hear a rational argument which justifies the killing of one innocent human being merely for the convenience–financial or otherwise–of another. Even the arguments fro rape and incest exceptions cannot get around the fact that innocent life which had no role in the predicate crime is being destroyed. The fundamental question, which pro-choice people refuse to answer is, “what are we destroying?” The reason for that is that the house of cards which is the justification for abortion collapses philosophically the moment the question is answered.

Comments are closed.