Elizabeth Warren knows that she's losing the abortion fight

If you need proof that the pro-abortionists are losing, this article provides that proof. In the article, Sen. Warren is quoted as saying "In Massachusetts right now, those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help outnumber true abortion clinics by 3 to 1. We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that."

That's astonishing from multiple perspectives. Sen. Warren apparently thinks that using the government to stop private citizens from persuading women to carry a baby to term is a legitimate function of government. First, the thought that the government should be used to silence people stands in direct opposition to the First Amendment. That makes Sen. Warren a marxist, which is defined as "the collective term for the economic, social, and political philosophy of Karl Marx. In particular, the philosophy states that capitalism is a self-destructive system that eventually leads to a revolution of the working class so that they can establish a classless society." Next, if abortion is such a great idea, why shut crisis pregnancy centers down using brute government force?

Warren's approach shuts down debate. If I've got the better argument on whatever issue we're discussing, I can't wait to debate. That's how you change hearts and minds. Sen. Warren's approach creates bitter, long-lasting divisions between people.

Notice Sen. Warren's priorities for shutting the CPCs:

those crisis pregnancy centers that are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination.
It's one thing to read the words. It's another to watch Sen. Warren's rant and hear the vitriol in her voice:

That's what a monster sounds like:
"You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that," Warren said.
Elizabeth Warren is pro-abortion. She isn't pro-choice. AOC is no better. Hearing these words makes it altogether believable to think that there's a wing of the Democrat Party that favors abortion-on-demand until the birthing moment. Compare Sen. Warren with a true giant of the Senate:
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., a longtime abortion rights supporter, is breaking with his own party to condemn a controversial late-term abortion procedure as tantamount to infanticide.

In interviews over the past week and a half, Moynihan has become one of the most prominent and influential pro-choice lawmakers to say they would vote to override President Clinton’s veto of legislation to ban what’s been termed "partial-birth″ abortions.

"It is as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary,″ Moynihan told reporters Friday. "I would vote to override the veto.″

Sen. Warren is just a nasty person. She should be seen as a pariah. Instead, she's seen as a leader in the Democrat Party. How barbaric is that?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more