Well Hillary is finally getting her chance. She wanted to run her presidential campaign against George W. Bush. And she did. She talked about him 24/7. Except she forgot to beat the people who were actually running against her and she was forced to return to her day job.
But now she’s getting her chance again to run against Bush and what is it about, of course, but the opportunity not just to kill babies but to force Christians to kill babies. It’s right up her alley. (not like the infamous back-alleys. Just a plain old alley)
Hillary is now clearly off of her medication and is screaming and ranting to anyone who will hear her:
The Bush Administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women’s health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them “abortion.” These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can’t let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women’s health and that’s why I am sounding the alarm.
I dig the whole ‘sounding the alarm’ thing. She’s like the Paul Revere of abortionists riding through the lobbying firms screaming “The Bushies are coming. The Bushies are coming.”
She even started her own little petition to force Christians to kill babies on her HillPAC site which raises money for left wing loonies not named Obama. She’s written op-eds (which oddly enough were not rejected by the liberal media.) She’s given interviews. She’s delivered speeches all with the same message – Let’s force Christians who believe life begins at conception to abort babies.
Here’s the thing – federal employment law already prohibits firing workers for refusing to perform abortions. But the proposal could extend those rules to include emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill,” which is sold under the brand name Plan B. You know, for those underhanded anti-abortion anti-science types who believe life begins at conception and not at some random moment later like “implantation” or Kindergarten.
Administration officials say the rule change is simply about employment discrimination. But Hillary who sees pro-life conspiracies everywhere the way Joe McCarthy saw Commies is convinced it clearly is a ploy to limit women’s access to reproductive health care.
This is an issue because some state laws require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.
Remember, Connecticut’s Catholic bishops agreed to administer emergency contraception to all rape victims at Catholic hospitals as a new state law requiring them to do so took effect. What? You don’t remember the asterisk on the “Thou Shall not Kill” Commandment which clearly states “except in cases of rape or incest.”
I just hate it when my bishops see the Bible as “a living document” like the Constitution. I especially hate it when bishops and Hillary Clinton agree.
So Hillary has her campaign back. She’s running against George W. Bush one last time. I don’t know it may be just me but I’d just get a kick out of seeing her lose one last time. I’d just love to see her beat by a guy with lower approval ratings than Stalin (who oddly enough like Hillary also didn’t like Christians or babies.)
July 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Couple thoughts:
Justice Scalia has said, on a couple of occasions, “My Constitution is not living, it is dead.” I agree completely with his meaning.
Also, I’ve always hated the phrase “reproductive health care”. By and large, it’s intentionally misdescriptive in the worst Orwellian sense, being quite against reproduction (with the possible exceptions of IVF (I’d contend children should be begotten, not made) and fertility drugs, it’s strictly against reproduction), it’s not about health (it’s about making healthy organs not function properly), and it’s not very caring (it’s false compassion with disastrous consequences, physical, psychological and sociological).
Maybe if you get a creative second you could think of a more appropriate and catchy phrase? You’re read enough that if it’s good you just might create a Catholic “viral phrase” and launch an assault in the increasingly important war-with-words.
God Bless,
July 25, 2008 at 8:52 am
"putting ideology before science and women's health"
Right. Because the pill & abortions are so healthy for women. I was on the pill for 8 years, and got off when I finally learned what the pill was doing to me (and potentially doing to any babies that may have been conceived). If women truly knew what the pill did to their bodies, I highly doubt many would choose to be on it. Of course, our doctors and politicians don't tell us what the pill does (at least, that's been my experience).
Oh yes, and science backs up these health risks, as well as backing up that life begins at conception. So I think it's Hillary who is putting her ideology before science and women's health. But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe she hasn't been taught about all of these risks.
July 26, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I think there must be some sort of color filter that people put on when they adopt these terms and ideologies. It’s like the ultimate sunglasses, but instead of filtering out bright lights, they filter out sin, and its effects. I’m young, and I have a long list of encyclicals I need to read, but Humanae Vitae is going to the top of the list from the excerpts I’ve been encountering lately. The past two years I worked at a domestic violence/sexual assualt hotline– if the terrible stories I heard aren’t the fulfillment of HV predictions, then I dread what is next to come.
I’m from Massachusetts, where, basically, having a conscience beyond a ‘whatever floats your boat’ morality means you can be sued, imprisoned, etc. No one ever made a news story about the policemen who threw my mom over a barricade onto concrete or pushed an old man in a wheelchair down some stairs during peaceful vigils and nonviolent direct action at the clinics. We’ve even had buffer zones around the clinics, because free speech is okay when it comes to indecent dress at school or talking to grade schoolers about homosexuality, but it’s illegal when protesting the slaughter of the innocents and the war against women (which I consider abortion a part of).
I would like to point out, however, that, despite such terrible misuses of health and medical terms to justify the heinous, there is a value to reproductive health care. There are a lot of undiagosed conditions out there, and the BC pill can be a legitimate treatment. I’m unmarried and chaste, and it really helped out a condition I have (although I am glad to be off it).
~Nzie