Don’t Believe It, Pro-Choicers!

Sorted under 2008 election, anti-choice extremism, politics on September 2, 2008

While blog-hopping today and catching up on some news (Yes, I know, I have missed a lot that has been happening, especially with RNC, and will get some opinions of mine up on that shortly) and found this little gem floating around:

Fox News is labeling Palin as a pro-choice candidate. Leave it to Fox News to spread blatant lies like this!

Sarah Palin, pro choice

Sarah Palin, pro choice 2

For the record, Sarah Palin is not pro-choice; she is a strict anti-choice, abstinence-only education and creationism education-supporting candidate. Overall, she is a complete anti-woman candidate. She is even a member of Feminists for Life, as much as an oxymoron that is! Catholic.org has even cited Palin as being “truly pro-life.”

So pro-choicers out there, don’t believe the lies Fox News is spreading to make Palin look like a more attractive candidate. She does not stand for choice, she does not stand for real sex education, she does not stand for any education that is based on science, but only on “creationism;” which even Wikipedia states in its first sentence can also refer to “creation myths.” Lastly, Sarah Palin does not stand for feminism or for women.

Via News Hounds.

And for the people who keep pointing out and asking why I keep grouping anti-choice and anti-woman together, here’s a lovely form of entertainment that speaks volumes and volumes of truth:



You May Also Enjoy:

  • Joel_101
    Sorry - but I hear bloopers and mistakes like that on all the news channels - as a news aholic I have CNN, MSNBC and FOX feeds going all the time. Heck, when the asst. chairwoman of the GOP (?) spoke at the convention this evening she called Sarah Palin a different name.

    Most everyone gets it right and labels her as pro-life... So I think these are just mistakes - no conspiracy here.
  • strange. sarah palin is clearly not pro choice. she's made statements in the past which clearly show this. fox news should not be allowed to get away with this misinformation. i cannot think of any way that this misinformation is unintentional.
  • George Carlin is the bomb. lol I've often wondered about the "women are natural serial killers" issue myself, because by pro-life arguments, it must indeed be true. Our bodies are designed NOT to carry each and every possible conception to full-term, just as sperm is treated as a foreign substance that must be eradicated from the system. It's just the way the body works. So then I hear people say that, well, life begins at the moment of implantation. But again, not all of these fertilized eggs make it to the final stage. Miscarriages happen.

    I argued with someone many moons back about how, if abortion were deemed illegal, would we determine if a miscarriage was accidental and unintended or actually the result of an illegal abortion. Just think about that. Would the burden of proof fall on the woman, and if so, how on earth would she defend herself? It seems this would only encourage women NOT to seek out prenatal care for fear that if a miscarriage occurred, she might be held liable as her pregnancy was already made known. Maybe if the woman was rushed to the emergency room directly afterwards she would stand a chance at defending herself, but then wouldn't doctors have a "moral responsibility" to report to police if they suspected something was amiss? And what would it take for them to think so? The miscarriage being the result of a tumble down the stairs? Things like that happen, and I'm not sure how you would be able to discern deliberate actions from unintentional accidents. The only way as far as I can tell is to lock up the women and monitor the progress of their pregnancies daily, and how realistic is that?

    Some say this is all so extreme. Well, the pro-life arguments are extreme. I'm just trying to figure out how they might enforce what would amount to an unenforceable law.

    As for Palin...I wouldn't vote for McCain anyway, so I haven't concerned myself with this woman. From what I've read (since everyone's talking about it these days), she sounds like one of the worst choices for vice president in the history of this country. Why McCain would shoot himself in the foot like this is beyond me. Most republicans aren't fundamentalist Christians. Some say he ought to have chosen an independent VP to draw in the independent voters, but I'm thinking most of us independents are planning on steering clear of the GOP this election, opting for "third party" candidates instead. McCain isn't conservative, he's pro-neocon and his chosen running mate will likely turn off plenty who identify with the old conservative mindset of limiting government and keeping Washington out of our personal lives.
  • Thank you for sharing this with us!
blog comments powered by Disqus