Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren Goes Full Abortion Absolutist, Called Restrictions a ‘Class, Race Attack on Women’

Elizabeth Warren Goes Full Abortion Absolutist, Called Restrictions a ‘Class, Race Attack on Women’

If we should govern based on polls, which is Warren’s rationale at the moment, then by her own standards her position is out of touch with a majority of American voters.

https://youtu.be/x6R4z8h-4C0

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has spent a lot of time over the last several months traveling to different states and assuring Democratic voters she is willing to do whatever it takes to buy win their votes on issues like reparations for the African American community and the gay community, as well as for Native Americans. She’s also promised “free” childcare and “free” college access.

But over the weekend, the 2020 presidential candidate took the opportunity to remind people that she’s all-in on the abortion fight, too, as the DC Examiner reports:

“It is not 1952,” the Massachusetts senator said on Saturday about her work in the upper chamber to expand abortion rights. “You’re not going to lock women back in the kitchen. You are not going to tell us what to do.”

Warren was speaking at the “We Decide” forum hosted by Planned Parenthood’s political arm, an event coinciding with the state Democratic convention. She has promised that if elected president she would have Congress pass a bill into law to codify Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion across the country for up to fetal viability, which is generally understood to be at around 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

[…]

Warren called restrictions on abortion a “class … and race attack on women,” warning that the bans would primarily affect poorer women who don’t have the time and resources to travel out of state to get abortions.

Warren’s class and race answer came in response to a question from an abortion rights activist in the crowd who proudly announced she was 22 weeks pregnant with a baby girl.

A 2015 study found that, due to scientific advances, babies born prematurely at 22 weeks were seeing their chances for survival increase with aggressive treatment. Warren’s plans on abortion would codify into federal law the “right” to abort babies at that stage of pregnancy.

Watch video of Warren’s full remarks on abortion rights from the Planned Parenthood forum below:

Warren’s renewed commitment to ensuring unrestricted access to abortions for women includes an original series of steps to make abortions legal nationwide up until the point of birth, as Life News notes:

In May, she introduced a massive new plan to legalize abortions for any reason up to birth throughout America and force taxpayers to pay for them. She said she believes the legislation is necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade in the near future.

Her plan would prohibit states from “interfering” in any way with a woman’s access to abortion. This leaves no allowances for restrictions on abortions after unborn babies are viable or even partial-birth abortions, which could become legal again under her plan.

Additionally, her proposal would require that all health plans “– including Medicare for All — [include] contraception and abortion coverage.”

Something she said during the forum I’d like to focus on are her references to polling on the American people’s thoughts on Roe v. Wade. Here’s what she said (transcribed):

“So here’s how I see this. Basically about 3 out of ever 4 people in this country want to see the rule of Roe versus Wade upheld.

This is a democracy. In a democracy, the laws should reflect the values of the people. So I say it is time to go on offense with Roe versus Wade.”

Putting aside the absurd idea that American lawmakers should govern based on polling, what Warren didn’t mention about the poll she cited was that a majority also believed in some types of abortion restrictions:

But a majority of Americans do not support allowing abortion in any circumstance, a sign that far-left positions on the issue — such as those being pushed by some Democratic lawmakers in places like Vermont — are just as politically risky as the conservative laws being passed in Alabama, Mississippi and elsewhere.

[…]

There is some common ground among the majority of Americans who do not fall on the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum on the abortion issue. For example, roughly two-thirds of Americans are in favor of requiring women to wait 24 hours between meeting with a health professional to undergo an abortion procedure, and support requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.

So if we should govern based on polls, which is Warren’s rationale at the moment, then by her own standards her abortion-on-demand position is out of touch with a majority of mainstream American voters who believe there should be restrictions on abortion depending on the circumstances.

A different poll taken last month showed that a majority of Americans did not feel that fetal heartbeat abortion bans were too restrictive. She didn’t cite that one in her speech, of course.

The Senator picking and choosing which polling to reference to suit her arguments goes to show the folly of politicians using such numbers to justify their positions. Another example is that the vast majority of Americans do not support reparations, yet Warren does. Think we’ll see her preaching about how our laws should “reflect the values of the people” on that one?

When it comes to the issue of abortion, Warren has more or less turned into Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s “mini-me.” Gillibrand, as I’ve written previously, so far is the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential race when it comes to out-extreme her competitors on abortion rights. But Warren is doing her best to overtake her in the abortion-on-demand-without-apology sweepstakes.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

JusticeDelivered | June 25, 2019 at 8:38 pm

I do not think it is good policy to force women to have children they don’t want. We are already paying through the nose for children who are born to people who are only after a welfare check, who do not raise those children well, and then we get to pay through the nose to prosecute and imprison them.

But,faced with the threat of being overrun with illegals and Muslims, and also many other threats, and then seeing the pussy demonstrations and Me Too persecutions, it seems reasonable to compromise on abortion.

Policy needs to change to get good parents to have more children, and stop those who are unwilling or incapable of parenting from having kids.

    guinspen in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 25, 2019 at 9:32 pm

    I do not think it is good policy to force women to have children they don’t want.

    Then keep your pants on, ladies!

    Good idea. let’s make it legal for a mother to kill her child at anytime up to its 18th birthday. After all, we wouldn;t want to saddle a woman with the responsibility of actually caring for and raising her children.. Killing surplus children sounds like a good idea to me. {sarcasm!!!!]}

      carabec in reply to Mac45. | June 26, 2019 at 8:20 am

      It’s astounding how so many on the Left cry out for the Blood of Innocent PreBorn Human Beings!
      The Democrat Party is the Party of Death and Degradation!

      Connivin Caniff in reply to Mac45. | June 26, 2019 at 9:06 am

      At some point, be it at actual birth, viability, or otherwise, due process requires that a guardian be appointed by the court of jurisdiction to represent the interests of the child, before they kill it. If I were the guardian, I would certainly argue, if applicable, that Mommy’s pregnancy was at least the product of her own negligence, so don’t punish the baby for her folly.

    Tom Servo in reply to JusticeDelivered. | June 26, 2019 at 10:24 am

    How about if we compromise on Murder, too? If we agree that someone is really not any good, and no one really wants him or her around, how about we say that it’s okay for anyone to kill them and no one will pay any attention to it? What’s the difference between that and what you propose? It’s just another compromise.

OnTheLeftCoast | June 25, 2019 at 8:38 pm

Warren is engaged in the target identification phase of her campaign. She is identifying the regions where anti-Progressive thought still has influence.

Then, together with the PRC’s partner, Google, she can focus on Chinese-style reeducation. For now it won’t be as intensive in the US schools and children’s media, but this is the methodology coming to curricula in the enemy zones.

Speaking of Google, see Project Veritas’ latest.

Unless that can be thwarted, a 2020 Trump victory will come to be seen as the last futile gasp of the counterrevolution.

It’s a baby, it’s a fetus, it’s a “burden” (h/t Obama).

Presumably because women do not possess the mental capacity to comprehend the reproductive process or a conscience to accept responsibility for their actions.

No more “friendship with benefits”. No more “casting couches”. No more treating women, and men, like children. No more wicked solutions.

Vive la sexual revolucion! #HateLovesAbortion

    DDsModernLife in reply to n.n. | June 25, 2019 at 9:20 pm

    “Presumably because women do not possess the mental capacity to comprehend the reproductive process…”

    Indeed, I find it odd that through 0bamacare we’re all forced to subsidize contraception through our insurance plans but that’s not sufficient. We must pay for contraception, accept its universal failure, and promote “Plan B,” abortion.

First of all, it is an absolute falsehood that a woman who has an abortion is simply “doing what she wants with her own body.”

She is murdering an entirely separate living human being. I could make a religious argument against abortion but I realize that while valid it would be unpersuasive to people who completely lack self-awareness along with religious convictions.

The claim I’m forcing my morality on them. But they insist on forcing their morality on me when they say I have to subsidize their birth control including abortion-inducing drugs* and when they demand that Congress repeal the Hyde Amendment so they can have taxpayer-funded abortions regardless of the moral convictions of the taxpayer.

Their argument for forcing their morality on me can best be summed up as, “Eek, get out of my bedroom you Christofascist, but leave your cash and credit cards on the dresser.”

I realize that this country will never outlaw abortion. But leftists think we should be more like Europe. Fine. Abortions are legal in Croatia but only during the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Then they are illegal except to preserve the physical health of the mother. None of that “mental or emotional health” nonsense.

If a woman wants to have casual, consequence free sex that’s fine; she can do what she wants with her own body. I’ve been on some threads where leftist women insist that men are hypocrites about abortion because they won’t wear condoms or something.

Huh? Who told prog women that they have to open their legs for a guy who won’t wear a condom? Which is a good idea if you’re sleeping around even if the woman is on birth control. Apparently leftist women are never responsible for their own decisions, such as their choice of sex partners. Apparently the HAVE to sleep with a guy who won’t wear a condom. Which in any rational world means they shouldn’t be allowed to make adult decisions but should have a guardian appointed to make decisions for them. But then feminism teaches that a preference for reason over emotion is simply a relic of the male privilege perpetuated by the patriarchy.

As the saying goes, I s**t you not.

Which is why science provides the most persuasive argument against the “don’t tell me what I can do with my own body” canard. A fetus (Latin for “offspring” or “child” so when male as well as female feminists insist that no one refers to what’s in their uterus as a baby but rather as a fetus, in their ignorance they are still confirming it’s a child) is a separate living human being that is not part of a woman’s body.

1) We know it’s alive because the cells are dividing almost immediately after the sperm fertilizes the egg. That is the fundamental basis upon which an organism can be determined to be alive or not.

2) Genetically the zygote is genetically human and distinct from the mother and the father. It has all the DNA it will ever have upon fertilization and that is true no matter the human being’s stage of development.

3) The placenta does not connect the developing human being to the woman’s body but separates it from the woman’s body. Not to get too technical but the mother and child do not always share the same blood types. While O positive is the most common blood type, only O negative is the universal donor because it does not contain the Rh protein. Negative blood types can go to anyone who shares the same blood type; B negative can be transmitted to both B positive and B negative patients, but B negative patients can only receive blood from B negative donors or else the Rh protein will trigger the immune system.

AB positive is the universal recipient blood type but again this is extremely rare.

If the placenta connected the mother to fetus that would be fatal approximately 90% of the time.

Since the fetus is a living, genetically distinct human being that is not a part of the woman’s body than if deserves to be recognized as such by law at some point during the pregnancy. I mentioned the example of Croatia earlier. Most if not all European countries place limits on how many weeks along a woman’s pregnancy can be and still legally have an elective abortion. After that point an abortion is legal only if it’s necessary to save a woman’s life.

As an aside, abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. You can’t get a direct abortion in a Catholic hospital (notice my careful use of language). A developing fetus simply doesn’t place enough demands on woman’s body until it gets large enough. And when it’s large enough it has reached the stage where the odds are it is viable outside the womb and can be delivered by C-section.

Which is why I draw a distinction between terminating a pregnancy and abortion. If a woman passes the time limit when she can no longer have an elective abortion, Ok. Just make that limit below the stage of viability. She can still terminate the pregnancy and there is no need to kill the baby.

I have never understood the argument about the mental and emotional “health” of the mother (which again is not a factor in most European countries). Terminating the pregnancy is one thing. What kind of woman needs to know, for mental/emotional health reasons, that their baby is dead, dead, dead! We have a word for people of both sexes who have a need to know their victims are dead. Psychopath. It’s a very sick society that caters to the whims of psychopaths. If it’s really that important, lie to her. After all, abortion techniques particularly in the third trimester are often more dangerous than an natural birth or a C-section.

It’s actually not quite true that a woman can elect to have an abortion while she’s in labor. It’s rare that a child is born naturally in the position that the abortionist needs to practice his/her “art;” a breech birth. There are different types of breech births, but 96 times of a hundred by the 35th week or at most the 36th (40 weeks is full term) the baby has turned head down in preparation for birth.

Late term abortions require turning the baby around so it is head up and can be delivered legs first.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | June 25, 2019 at 10:27 pm

    Since late term abortions are more dangerous than natural birth/C-sections, just lie to the psycho. Tell her there were complications and the doctors had to perform emergency surgery. But tell her not to worry. They killed the baby anyway in accordance to her wishes.

    911 operator: “911, what is your emergency?

    Psycho caller: “We tried to kill a baby, but it was born alive anyway.”

    Somebody will want the kid.

    We are committing national suicide no matter how you look at it. Europe is even further along. The rationale in both cases is that since birth rates among native Europeans have fallen below replacement rate (we’re not there yet but we are trending that way) the only solution is mass migration so they (and we) can farm out reproduction to a replacement population. Otherwise there won’t be enough workers to support pensioners.

    This is a result of policy. First, SSM for the first time in the history of marriage removes children as central to the purpose of the institution. In fact, SSM makes children irrelevant to marriage. Abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy further devalues the lives of children. Children are a burden on society.

    No society can survive with these attitudes. And no society can survive by importing an uneducated, unskilled, and hostile underclass that won’t assimilate. In Europe Muslims arrive by and large without the skills to work in an advanced economy, without the education to learn those skills, and without the intent or desire to them because they believe Islamic society is superior to the corrupt, decadent Western civilization they have immigrated to replace. They’re not going to pay into a system for the benefit of the infidels. The natural order of things is that the infidels support the Muslim warriors through the jizya or non-Muslim tax.

    It’s slightly different in the US only in that the reasons the uneducated, unskilled underclass won’t assimilate is because assimilation, the leftists tell them, is an artifact of white privilege. Whites owe them, not the other way around. I recall after proposition 13 passed in Kali, which placed limits on how high the government could raise property taxes, and the voters rejected the numerous attempts to repeal it.

    The threats started coming in from groups like La Raza. “I’d hate to be old and white in California down the road.” The idea that the replacement “brown other” population will work and pay taxes to support the legacy “white supremacist/white skin privilege” population is an insane pipe dream.

Politico reports that “centrists” in the Democratic party seem to be settling on Elizabeth Warren as the more “moderate” alternative to the blatant socialists like Bernie Sanders as the alternative who can beat Trump.

Huh?

Somehow Reparations: Electric Boogaloo and now 24/7 Abortionpalooza don’t seem very centrist to me.

This power-mad psycho would sell her mother to the Indians.

Abortion is child abuse and an attack on preborn women and men.

The Democrat Party is the Party of Death and Degradation!

The Democrat Party’s bloodthirsty base would always demand a seek-and-destroy attitude on infants from their candidate. But thanks to GOPe cowardice, corrupt Federal courts and growing voting fraud they also feel that they are beyond the reach of the Deplorables, and there will no longer be any accountability. Infanticide, antisemitism, a crackdown on free speech, and ignoring the Bill of Rights – for Democrats it’s all good.

texansamurai | June 26, 2019 at 10:03 am

have always viewed abortion through two lenses–morally, am prolife–legally, am prochoice–hard to think of anything else in this life that you own more completely than your physical body(be it male or female)–that said, up to a certain point, a fetus is biologically a group of cells only, not a sentient being–in my humble opinion, anything a woman decides BEFORE that point is her decision only, not the government’s–AFTER that point, it becomes considerably more complicated–however, the termination of a successful live birth, for whatever reason, possesses every one of the essential traits as defines first-degree murder

somewhere there must be a balance–how can any nation that considers itself ” civilized ” or ” compassionate ” condone the murder of innocent beings?

ScottTheEngineer | June 26, 2019 at 10:43 am

Interesting concept, killing a baby to solve a problem.

“I was on my way home from work yesterday and this shudder developed in the front end of my car; any idea what that could be?” “Hmm, sounds like maybe your ball joints are going bad. Have you tried killing a baby?”.

Oops, made a mistake. Well, that’s why pencils have erasers and planned parenthood has a baby grinder.

LOL! Democrats literally make-up and say ANYTHING they think will work…and that they’ll get away with! Including “facts” like statistics. Data is just a word to them! It’s frustrating, but it seems like more and more folks are catching on…

2smartforlibs | June 26, 2019 at 1:50 pm

How dense is Fauxcahontas to not know what Margaret Sanger was all about?

The real “War on Women” is gender selection abortions!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend