WAR ON WOMEN---PURE HORSE-HOCKEY!!!

American women that are standing on the rooftops and screaming that there is somehow a huge subplot among conservative Americans to take them back to the days of the stone ages is about the biggest bunch of horse hockey that I have every heard of. Talk about politics gone crazy! But what is scary, is that the Democratic Party and the liberal, anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-life psychopaths that are trying to convince the world that conservatives are anti-women are actually having some level of success.

WOMEN OF AMERICA, WAKE UP!!! You are being played like puppets on a string, and apparently you are just so willing to go along with it that you have sold your brains, your common sense, and your real freedoms to the gods of liberalism and sexual freedom.

Anytime someone comes up with any statement that says that abortion is anything but a God-given right to a woman at anytime, under any conditions is automatically branded a whack-o, a woman hater, a chauvinist, and worthy of contempt, destruction, and damnation. But let's go back a few decades and look at the way his abortion controversy came to light. In the 1950's, abortion was a crime. The Catholic church went so far as to say that in the case of having to choose between saving the mother's life and the child's life, the child's life was to take precedent. In those days, sexual purity until marriage was still something that was believed in as a virtue and something that was highly venerated by society.

Then, along came the sixties and the “free love” movement. The temptations and introductions of mind-altering drugs into high school and college kids' lives became more and more commonplace. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Miller -vs- California abandoned the nearly century old Regina -vs- Hecklin measurements for defining obscenity and opened pandora's box, so-to-speak, which has got America (and the rest of the world) to the point that full nudity and pornography is as common as seeing Lucy and Desi in granny robes and full pajamas was in the 50s; it is now impossible to protect our children from pornography.  

The sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies culminated in a landmark case that is both hated and revered by women all over; Roe-vs-Wade in 1973, which by the Court's reading into the protection in the Constitution of due process as provided in the 14^th Amendment {Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.} . That this somehow extended to a woman having absolute control over what she does with her body in private, therefore if she wishes to kill her unborn child, that is her Constitutional right is beyond comprehension. Especially if one examines what the writers of the 14^th Amendment were intending to accomplish when they wrote it.

This decision along with innumerable others that time does not permit listing , in my mind, proves that the U.S. Supreme Court is a purely political body, subject to the political mindset of the continually changing waves of public sentiment, and as such, makes its decisions not on what the intent of the provision of the Constitution being debated was intended by its author(s) to provide the citizens of the nation, but instead on the pressures and social agenda of the day.

Seriously, someone would have to be a very creative individual to first of all read into this article of the Constitution anything that could be construed as there being any issue of privacy of a woman's body that would allow her to destroy a life within her. That is infanticide, plain and simple. A child, absent of any proactive actions, from the moment of conception would continue to grow and eventually would pass out of the womb and into the world as a living, breathing human being. It takes a physical act of intervention (murder, infanticide) or an act of God to stop that process. That physical act, until this really stupid and cruel ruling by the Court in Roe-vs-Wade was called murder, and had been for centuries.

This paranoia by women that it this effort to halt abortion is an attempt to put them back in their rights for equal treatment under the law is absurd. It is the work of women who somehow think it is better to all women to have the right to have unprotected sex anytime they want, then if by some mistake they become pregnant, rather than have their lifestyle cramped by this new life, it is legal to kill it before it ever sees the light of day.

I have a real problem with that on a lot of levels:

• In today's world, contraceptives are readily available. A woman can buy birth control pills for about $9.00 a month, or if indigent, can get them free at Planned Parenthood. There really is NO excuse to have unprotected sex anymore. If a woman is too impatient, too 'liberated”, or too anxious to take precautions before having sex, that should not be a reason to kill an unplanned, unwanted child. If she has no protection, nor does the man, then they should NOT take the risk of having sex; they should wait. If they cannot wait or cannot go get protection, then if a pregnancy results, that is NO excuse to kill the child.
• I remember what it was like to be a young boy, but I also remember that my parents instilled in me something called respect for a young girl. I was taught that to make sexual advances to young ladies was an insult to those women. Today, women seem to have been taught the exact opposite; that if a young man does NOT make sexual advances towards her, that she should be insulted. I guess women are being taught by society that the only thing about them that deserves respect is their sexual attractiveness. Is that what you “liberated women” want...to be viewed as worthwhile only if you can elicit sexual advances from young men? It is beyond me how that can possible be considered a woman being treated equally in society. What about your brains, what about your contributions to society, what about your morality, what about your service to mankind and your fellow citizen? WAKE UP, ladies! You are being manipulated and maneuvered by advertisers, Hollywood, and liberals into becoming a single-value person; a sexual animal, good for breeding purposes, but nothing else, and you are letting it happen and the destruction of your real self-worth is being conducted by your own misguided liberal gender.
• Women today are being told that they are paid less than a man doing the same job. That is not right, and I believe that if a woman does the exact same job as a man and does it equally as well as a man, then the two should be paid the same. Period!
• I get REALLY MAD when I hear women get up and say that if a person does not agree with Roe-vs-Wade that abortion should be legal, that man wants to suppress women's rights and drive them back into the homes and make them all “good little wives”. That is hogwash and a purely political, self-serving, divisive tactic to deflect the real heart of the issue. People who object to children being treated like a mole or tumor instead of a person understand not only the physical sciences have proven that life begins at conception, but that to take the life of an innocent, unborn child under any circumstances is a criminal act against a defenseless, innocent person, and should be considered as murder.
  • Well, women are constantly throwing up the cases of what if a woman is raped, gets pregnant from incest, or the life of the mother is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy. What should the law say, and what should women do there? Honestly, those are difficult questions that I cannot answer. If measures are taken immediately after sex which prevent the baby from ever being formed in the mother's uterus, I am not morally or theologically equipped to determine whether that is a crime or a sin or both or neither. However, if the child is formed in the mother's womb, then we still have the same situation as initially mentioned; under what (if any) circumstances is it proper to destroy a healthy fetus that, if left alone, would develop and be born as a human child? Morally, and legally, that seems to cry out as murder of the most innocent of our citizens, the defenseless, innocent child.  
  • Many state and federal laws are on the books that state that someone who kills a pregnant woman and in that act the unborn child also dies will be charged with two murders. Those laws recognize the life of the unborn fetus as that of a human being. Why does the method of conception of the child change the circumstances or the status of that child as a protected citizen of the United States of America or the State in which the child is conceived? Those laws do not differentiate on whether the woman was married, unmarried, whether the child was conceived in love, through rape, or through incest.  They just say it is a person that was murdered.
  • There have been numerous studies done since Roe-vs-Wade was made law. Some of the more recent ones by organizations like The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives show that of all abortions performed, approximately one percent (1%) involve rape or incest claims, and approximately six percent (6%) of abortions performed involve situations where the life of the mother might endangered. Therefore, approximately ninety-three percent of all abortions performed are done as a matter of convenience to the mother. That equates to approximately thirty-nine million children (worldwide) being aborted each year for the convenience of the mother.

These statistics are extremely alarming. Every day in America, approximately three-thousand, seven hundred children are killed in the womb, or even more grotesquely, while being partially born, or even after being born. In my mind, that is just wrong, and no amount of justification or poorly concieved argument by a sick and warped U.S. Supreme Court can justify it.

Women, if you want to be given equal treatment under the law, then do things that would justify it. But standing in a crowd and demanding the right to kill an innocent, unborn child to me does not evoke sympathy or support. It evokes the most vile form of contempt I as a man can imagine. It to me represents a woman who values herself in one venue, that of a sexual object, and is demanding the right to be a totally irresponsible, and if required, murderous sexual object in order to feel equal. Anyone that demonstrates that type of mentality is, in my mind, no equal of mine, but something to be pitied, avoided, and prayed for.

By the way, I believe that every woman deserves the chance to do any job in the marketplace, as long as she can do it. But I do NOT believe that an employer should have to make any “special” arrangements for a woman to do that same job where a man would not need any “special” arrangements. It is not my responsibility to have to pay extra to get a job done just so a woman can be given that job. You want equal treatment, that is exactly what you get. If you can do the job, great. If you cannot, I am sorry, but to expect me to pay extra or to accept sub-standard performance just so a woman can fill the job...not something I feel I should be required to do, unless I cannot find a man that can do the job, but a woman that can do it with a “special” arrangement. Then, OK.

The end result must be an equal or better performance by a woman in a job for that woman to receive equal or better pay.

And ladies, no sense trying to dream up a thousand “what-ifs”. Every scenario can be scrutinized to death and a thousand twists added which change the situation. The general guideline is equal pay for equal work for men or women. But if you demand respect, you earn that, and screaming “WAR ON WOMEN” to keep a right to kill an innocent, unborn child...that only evokes contempt on my part; not respect in any shape, form, or fashion.

No, What America now have are a bunch of Pharisees and Sadducees sitting on the benches in the Federal Courts who may know the letter of the law, but are either clueless to what the authors of those laws or articles intended, or who are just so vile that they could care less what the intent was, and they try to twist the “words” so that they can meet a goal of changing society to meet what they think it should be, depending on their political and social beliefs of the day.

Our Forefathers understood the danger of twisting the intent of the laws as they were written and using modern-day interpretations or language when deciding cases. Listen to what some of the founders said regarding changing the purposes of laws:

• In a famous early Supreme Court Case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892)United States Supreme Court, the court stated this: It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. . . . [F]requently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.
• James Madison, 4^th President of the United States, to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824: “I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers….What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.”
• President Thomas Jefferson wrote this to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Johnson June 12, 1823: “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the middle of the 20^th century to abandon a century and a half of using the original intent of the authors of the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of a modern law, and instead decided to use the current court's judgment and see if it could find a modern way to interpret the “words” of the Constitution and therefore re-engineer American Society according to the society's social opinions of the day, it set the stage for practices that destroyed the America that our founding fathers intended to establish when they wrote the documents two-hundred plus years ago.

Women, get your head out of your reproductive parts and look at the world in rational terms. You have progressed amazingly over the last few years in equality in the job market. Women are flying fighters and participating in combat in the military. You have changed the mindset of corporate America to where they view women as equals in capability and performance in virtually every category. Yet your gender seems willing to forgo all of these gains and still define your equality status on the ability to kill your unborn children upon demand, with virtually no restrictions on justifications for doing so. Get real, women. You are more than this, and it very degrading to yourselves and your gender to identify your equality by this criteria.

Shame on you for degrading yourselves by these actions.