Carly Fiorina is proud to be pro-life
“Extreme,” you say? The only “extreme” view in the room is Hillary Clinton’s.
Carly Fiorina is proud to be pro-life. She’s also not willing to let Hillary Clinton’s extreme stance on abortion go unnoticed.
Flanked by pro-life leaders Tuesday, Carly Fiorina’s campaign released a short video in response to the second and arguably worst, undercover Planned Parenthood video.
The second investigative video showed yet another ranking Planned Parenthood official nonchalantly discussing the sale of aborted baby parts.
“These pro-life leaders are standing with me today to decry the moral depravity that we have seen now from Planned Parenthood. It doesn’t matter whether you think you’re pro-choice or pro-life, every woman, every man has to look at these videos and think, what has gone wrong in our nation?” said Fiorina.
“The hypocrisy of telling women over and over again that their unborn children are not life and yet talking calmly about how to preserve the organs of that life to save another life. The cruelty of denying women over and over again ultrasounds, so that they can see the life they carry within them and yet using that same technology to ensure the organs are preserved so that they can be presumable sold to save others.”
“This is a terrible moment and it is made even more terrible by the deafening silence of the Democratic party. Democrats have always fought for a policy that says, “it is not a life until it leaves the hospital.” Hillary Clinton has fought to preserve that policy, and we now have a moment in this nation to take some real action here. We can decide finally, to defund Planned Parenthood, and the Senate can decide to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”
Apparently, Fiorina was warming up for her appearance on Jake Tapper’s The Lead. Because on live cable news she kicked into Beast Mode Overdrive:
Tapper asked Fiorina to define her position on Governor Walker’s recent bill that prohibits abortions after twenty weeks and makes no exclusions for instances of rape and incest. Fiorina directed attention to the aforementioned bill currently on the Senate floor, “let’s talk about the legislation that’s sitting on the Senate floor right now which does allow for those exceptions.”
Tapper interrupted, attempting to pin Fiorina to Walker’s bill. Fiorina would have no part of it and kept talking.
“Let’s also talk about Hillary Clinton’s position. Let’s talk about what extreme is. It’s not a life until it leaves the hospital, that’s Hillary Clinton’s position. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that a 13-year-old girl needs her mother’s permission to go to a tanning salon or get a tattoo, but not to get an abortion. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion, and yet people who are trying to harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure that those body parts are preserved so they can be sold. That Jake, is extreme.”
“I would really be delighted if for once, the media would ask Hillary Clinton about the extremism of her position.”
More of this, please.
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Carly is fearless. She makes the simplest, clearest statements of all the candidates, I think. And I’m looking forward to hearing more. And I just bought her book, so I could read more!
She’s the most substantive, smart, capable, female presidential candidate I’ve ever seen, and one of the most articulate conservative speakers in a long time.
“The hypocrisy of telling women over and over again that their unborn children are not life and yet talking calmly about how to preserve the organs of that life to save another life. The cruelty of denying women over and over again ultrasounds, so that they can see the life they carry within them and yet using that same technology to ensure the organs are preserved so that they can be presumable sold to save others.”
She may have an argument, but this isn’t it. It’s a question of physics and physiology, not hypocrisy. Unfortunately a serious graduate-level seminar in biomechanics and the uses and hazards of wave propagation in fetal tissue is not well suited to a sound-bite campaign.
About three decades ago a physician asked me for some technical info on the uses of ultrasound, which in those days was primarily medical and metallurgical. After I told him a bit about it he decided to recommend that his patients avoid it unless it was important for diagnoses. No more frivolous ultrasounds so everybody could gawk at the baby. A few years later Harvard Med started putting out papers saying the same thing. Ultrasound is a diagnostic tool, not a toy.
If that diagnostic tool can help a woman seeking an abortion to see that life within her as a REAL, viable child… it’s worth the risk because the alternative is death.
It’s a “diagnostic tool” when it’s being used to scan a regular pregnancy, or to guide an abortion, but it’s a “toy” if it is a pre-abortion requirement?
You may have an argument, but this isn’t it.
In the United States, no abortion can occur, absent consent of the mother. The mother should have the power to decline any and all medical tests, including diagnostic tests that the State might use as a basis for later denying medical benefits as a means of coercing an abortion.
“She may have an argument, but this isn’t it. It’s a question of physics and physiology, not hypocrisy. Unfortunately a serious graduate-level seminar in biomechanics and the uses and hazards of wave propagation in fetal tissue is not well suited to a sound-bite campaign.”
So then, you must be against the fatal “uses and hazards” of abortion procedures to the mother and her unborn child.
Name dropping scientism in sound bites- “It’s a question of physics and physiology” and “a serious graduate-level seminar in biomechanics”- does NOT lend credibility to your inane comment. It is hubristic in the extreme.
Carly is great, a shame she will likely be kept out of the debates on the rush to the Lowest Common Denominator.
But don’t call this video “the worst” just yet. They claim to have a dozen more such videos. Why would they tease that if the others are not at least as bad?
And AG Lynch is giving cover to all Administration PR people with her “investigation.” Now they can refuse to comment because of the investigation. As convenient as Trump’s conversion to pro-life.
Let me say I am prolife, but does I have to ask about Carly Fiorina,
Does Carl Fiorina have any children?
In her book, she says she and her husband tried, “but it wasn’t God’s plan.”
Not sure why it matters, though. I mean, is Hillary somehow a better candidate because she managed to whelp?
Does it matter? Believe it or not, there are women in this world that for one reason or another do not have children but are pro-life.
In companies like HP and Lucent, there are two major, for lack of a better word, ‘cliques’ of employees: engineering and managerial. There are other employees but these are the two cliques the companies revolve around.
The engineering clique is generally involved with building up the company. With luck the managerial clique is not tearing down the company, but often it is. Fact is that big companies like Lucent, what keeps it going is the bureaucracy and bloated processes. In such a case the advancement in management is purely political. An ill-timed pregnancy can be career suicide. Let’s just say that it would not be a surprise that a woman in that situation would have an abortion.
Better to ask now then to find out she did in the general election.
You are a cretin. Is Trump really worth lowering yourself into the gutter like this for?
Well now I have proof that peroxide not only kills brain cells, but also kills retinal cells. I’ve said it would be great fun to watch Rosie’s head explode should Trump win. It will. I’ve said it’s nice to see him because he will generate all sorts of interest. He has I said he would focus our attention on important issues. He has. I have not said he is my choice.
Would I vote for Trump. If he was the nominee then yes. But that’s true of most of the pack. If when the primaries hit my state it is a race between Trump and Bush then most certainly. If it is a race between Trump, Bush and either Cruz or Walker, it wold be the person who has the better chance of beating Bush. If it was Trump vs Cruz or Walker, then probably not but I wopuld want to give it a bit closer of a look.
As for Carly, guess what? The candidate that she is closest to in style is Trump. The kinds of things that she is doing that I see being praised here are exactly the kind of things Trump does.
The main difference between the two, Trump is a success, Carly is an abject failure. The only person in Silicon Valley who has done worse is Ellen Pao. Before you say she isn’t, what were you saying about her in 2000? The first computer I programmed was an IBM 370 ( upgraded about a month earlier from a 360 ). I remember nagging my parents when I saw the Altair 8008, on the cover of popular electronics ( to buy the magazine ). I watched Carly become CEO of HP. I watched her run it into the ground. When did you even first hear of her? When she ran against Boxer?
As for women at Lucent. In the time that I was there the women engineers I met often had children, the women managers never did. Those focused on getting ahead would do anything they had to to avoid getting pregnant. So what was your experience when you worked there?
Sorry to ruin your Carlygasm.
How is that in the least bit important?
America needs Carly! She make the men running look like children. How do we get her to the debate?
I would vote for Carly. She does not have typical executive-branch experience, but she does have executive experience, and she is most impressive.
The GOP has a wonderful class of candidates.
As Townhall notes, Ms. Fiorina, in an interview on CNN, turned the typical “gotcha” question on abortion into a strong, fearless and clear whack at Hillary Clinton.
That’s how you do it. Ms. Fiorina seems to be better at this than the Pub front-runners. It’s unfortunate: the front-runners could truly help themselves with the base by going after Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Bernie and Hillary rather than the Donald. But for some reason Ms. Fiorina is the only candidate who consistently, clearly goes after the Dems by name.
I just might have to vote for her.
I love the photo with the women and the two black ministers. The activists try to paint the pro-life movement as white men seeking to oppress women.
In reality, some of the strongest supporters of abortion are men who really, really do not want to be responsible for THEIR choices in inviting a new human into the world.
This is especially true of those involved with under-aged girl or family members.
Funny how many Democrat womanizers are pro-abortion.
I have for many years struggled with the merits of various argument/positions regarding abortion. It is not a simple, one-dimensional issue. I am pretty clear on this: If you assert the right to truncate the rights of the pregnant woman in deference to the asserted rights of the zygote/fetus/unborn, then your burden on behalf of this life is substantial. The pregnant woman must be afforded unfettered access to wellness and prenatal and postnatal medical care, including guidance on exercise and nutrition, adequate housing/shelter in a safe neighborhood, and the means of access to nutritious food not available in most urban food deserts. The unborn, upon becoming a baby should be afforded access to well-baby and pediatric medical care, age-appropriate nutrition, opportunities for socialization and and early childhood development. Later access to quality education and nutrition, cultural enrichment opportunities, life in safe housing in a safe neighborhood are essential. Finally this child should have access to high quality higher education based on expressed interest and demonstrated competencies. If you’re signing on for this significant agenda on behalf of this sacred life, then you’re truly pro-life–and I’m on board with you. If, however, you think your obligation ends once birth has occurred, then you’re only pro-birth. The moral and ethical ramifications of that choice are deeply troubling. Your narrow limits of your commitment to “defend the rights of the unborn” must also be a central part of current debate.
That may be the silliest bag of crap I’ve read in a long, long time.
Believe it or not some men should not have children.
I don’t believe you have struggled with it for even a second.
Yes, it is a simple, one-dimensional issue. Either murder is legal or it is not.
No, saving someone from being murdered, raped, or robbed does not make one responsible for that person for the rest of her life. That’s the most ridiculous idea ever. If it were true then nobody would ever dare save anyone else. “Save me, Mr Fireman!” “I’m sorry, ma’am, but if I save you now I’ll have to look after you forever, and I just can’t afford another dependant, so I’ll just let you burn to death now.”
Oh, and there is no such thing as an “urban food desert”. The USDA’s alleged “map” was blown to bits the day it was released, when people found that many of these so-called “deserts” were in the parking lots of supermarkets!
Supporters of abortion need to make the moral questions as absolutely complex as possible, therein to hide and obfuscate their reasons for supporting it.
Excepting self-defense, is killing a human being moral or immoral? Right or wrong?
To support abortion, one has to know when life begins and be able to support it scientifically so an aborton cannot occur before life has begun. If one does not know when life begins, how an you possibly support abortion? Does one guess when life begins and make that guess at a place that allows what one wants – abortion? How moral is that? But that’s what abortion is. Wrong. Immoral.
The Pro-Life movement is strongly Christian and yes, it does offer many forms of assistance to mothers who decide not to have an abortion.
Also, the paragraph is your friend.
I’m not the only atheist who is pro-choice, but there are more than folks might realize.
My wife and I adopted three kids, but I’m not sure that goes in the atheist column since it was her idea and she’s a devout Christian.
D’oh! Make that pro-LIFE.
Intrinsic value does not imply superior rights. It begins with the basic human right to life. Something currently denied under pro-choice or selective-child policy. It proceeds with garnishing the wealth of both the mother and father until the child reaches age of majority. The society is only responsible to supplement that part of the child’s welfare that is not or cannot be provided by her parents, including social benefits enjoyed by eligible citizens. The parents should also have a right to demonstrate competency and retain parental rights and obligations for their child’s life and welfare.
I love as she calmly and patiently looks at him before she drops on him like panther out of tree.
pro choice in the past iirc so….grain of salt.
According to this HuffPo Politics piece from 2010, she’s irretrievably and unforgivably (from a Leftist viewpoint) pro-life: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/what-is-carly-fiorinas-position-on-abortion/
In 2009 when she was going up against DeVore in California, one of DeVore’s staffers tried to gin up some vague “vibe” that at some point in the past, she might have been “pro-choice”, but none of it really amounted to anything: http://www.redstate.com/diary/trevino/2009/08/25/carly-fiorina-and-life-issues-unanswered-questions/
I don’t think that attempts to smear Carly in 2015 as not being committed to life are going to fly. It didn’t work back then, and I can’t see it working five years later either. But between Mouse’s and your insinuations, I guess y’all are still still going to try…
not insinuating/smearing at all. believe me you will know when and if I do.
she’s always been ok with abortion in rape and incest cases.
I am not.
so deal with it.
GREAT! So she is going to “do something” instead of just PANDERING to the bible thumpers and religious superstitionists that “believe” they have the POWER to force their beliefs on everyone else. Has she introduced a constitutional amendment yet? Or does she just “promise” an “executive order” BANNING abortion or some such? Or will she go full catlick and ban birth control? ENQURING MINDS WANT TO KNOW! If I’m going to have to “join” a religious superstition, I want to join one that believes in 72 virgins and endlessly flowing “milk and honey”.
The belief that human life is a product of spontaneous conception? Or the one that asserts human life is a clump of cells and organs that can be exploited and redistributed until a mother assigns it a human classification?
A human life evolves from conception to a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death. There’s the key to a humane libertine utopia: conception. Are you sure that you want to normalize termination of human lives for light and casual causes?