Planned Parenthood claims to support women’s health. Their institutional actions, though, indicate they support criminal activity that would harm a child. How? By facilitating abortions for children raped by adult men. Fully 91% of the abortion clinics contacted would help an underaged girl receive an abortion even when the clinic counselor knew the father was an adult male.
[…]Far from being champions for women, abortion mills exploit them–even the young and raped. They cover up the crimes of grown men to what end? To keep abortion an absolute “right”? To protect their business?
In the last year, we’ve seen abortion mills shut down due to deplorable conditions. We’ve seen women maimed and even killed. We’ve seen jars of baby body parts on shelves.
And from the Planned Parenthoods of America, we’ve seen obfuscation and straight up lying. No, they don’t perform mammograms. No, they don’t focus on preventative health for women.
What Planned Parenthood does do is make a lot of money aborting babies. And, it seems, they are willing to abort the babies of babies who were raped by adult men trying to get rid of the criminal evidence.
My favorite Congresswoman stole the spotlight in Iowa when she lectured for the Family Leader Presidential Lecture Series. She’s back to the passionate arm-waving that I always liked so much.
Bachmann started her speech sharing her testimony saying she understood the Gospel for the first time at age 16 after growing up in a Lutheran Church and then she gave her life to Christ. She said that it “changed her life forever.” She said she had a hunger for the Word after then, and explained that the Holy Spirit “lifted the veil” from her eyes so she was then able to understand it. She participated in YoungLife and another Bible study when in high school. That first year in Christ was, Bachmann said, “was the defining year of my life.”
In college she participated the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at her school, and cited Francis Schaffer’s film, How Now Shall We Live, made an impact on how she lives out her faith. During law school at Oral Roberts University Law School she did advocacy for better homeschooling laws. She and her husband, Marcus, homeschooled their five children in their early years. She got involved in public schools as they did foster care for 23 kids since they were not allowed by Minnesota law to put those kids in private school or to home school them.
She noted a change in public schools where “knowledge, facts, and information” were taking a back seat to indoctrination. She noted the 2000 Goals to Work standard implemented in the public schools that was a federal program implemented in all 50 states. She advocated for its repeal in Minnesota – the first state to do so. She said later this is where she got her start in politics.
She highlighted her prolife advocacy in the Minnesota Legislature – a requirement to fund prolife groups if they were going to fund Planned Parenthood and a woman’s right to know act.
[…]On marriage, she commended Iowans for booting the three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for retention last fall. She said that Minnesota could possibly vote in favor of a Marriage Amendment now that Republicans She noted that Congress can limit the subject matter jurisdiction for Article Three courts federally denying them an opportunity to rule on marriage. “This is the first time in recorded history that we have seen marriage in society defined as anything other than between one man and one woman.”
[…]On life she said that she and her husband has done more than just talk about life, but have tried to live it out through being sidewalk counselors and taking unwed mothers into their home. Quoting Francis Schaeffer she, “life is the watershed issue of our time.” Bachman proclaimed her commitment to life, “I will not give up until we give life the position it deserves in the United States and is protected from conception until natural death.”
She explained how taxes has impacted the family where in the 1950s would pay approximately 5% of their income to taxes. She said now some families can pay up to 50% which explains why we have fewer one income families. She noted the spending which has fueled anti-family tax policy. She said the first thing on the House’s pro-family agenda was to rein in spending. Regarding education reform, she noted how the Supreme Court has recently ruled that tax credits for private religious schools is constitutional. She also said that she’d abolish the Federal Department of Education. She also called for the abolishment of the United States Tax Code.
[Note: commenter Francine notes that Michele says that this is the first time that marriage has been redefined to not be between men and women – the summary is in error about what she said]
She ends the speech with her concern for the fact that over 40% of children are beig born without a mother and father in the home, and she blames bad fiscal policies for this injustice. She makes the connection between left-wing fiscal policies and social breakdown. It’s so important that social conservatives understand that big government, high taxes, excessive regulation and massive spending are major causes of virtually all of our social problems. The breakdown of the family is what makes soul-destroying secularism possible.
There was also a press conference after the speech.
During the press conference that was held after Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s speech in Pella, IA for The FAMiLY Leader’s Presidential Lecture Series, she was asked to elaborate on the bill in Minnesota she helped to get passed that allowed funding for prolife organizations basically putting them on the same footing as Planned Parenthood. During her answer she mentioned that she said that she introduced a similar bill in Congress.
She was also asked about what programs would she be open to abolishing other than the Federal Department of Education. She listed the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce as ones that have been discussed in Congress. She said “anywhere we can abolish we might as well cut back and abolish.” Saying in particular that our private sector has the capability to handle our energy needs. She was asked about her disappointment with the House budget deal and where she would like the House leadership to put up a fight. Bachmann said, “defunding Obamacare, this will change our country forever.” She noted later that some may not be willing to take on budget battles in the future, she said that we have to… she said, “we have to change course.”
I have been pushing Michele Bachmann on this blog since the beginning two years ago, because she represents what I consider to be an ideal Christian woman. She is everything that I have ever hoped a Christian woman could be in my wildest, wildest dreams. I could not give any politician a more ringing endorsement. I hope with all my heart that she will some day be President of the United States.
She explained how taxes has impacted the family where in the 1950s would pay approximately 5% of their income to taxes. She said now some families can pay up to 50% which explains why we have fewer one income families. She noted the spending which has fueled anti-family tax policy. She said the first thing on the House’s pro-family agenda was to rein in spending. Regarding education reform, she noted how the Supreme Court has recently ruled that tax credits for private religious schools is constitutional. She also said that she’d abolish the Federal Department of Education. She also called for the abolishment of the United States Tax Code.
I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president’s invitation to Mr. Camp, Mr. Hensarling and myself was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our countries pressing fiscal challenges.
What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in chief.
I guess it’s no coincidence that last week when the president launched his billion dollar re-election campaign was the week we launched our effort to try and get this debt and deficit under control and get our economy growing.
Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the president created a fiscal commission. Then with his budget he disavowed his fiscal commission. He ignored all of its recommendations. Now he wants to delegate leadership yet again to a new commission. How are we to expect different results? And the measurements of results of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago.
We need leadership. We don’t need a doubling down on the failed politics of the past.
[…]Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it’s not change. It’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don’t need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions. If we don’t make those decisions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow.
Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling are the two best-known Republican budget wonks.
President Obama called your plan “a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them … but we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.” How do you respond?
I don’t even know what to say about that. First of all, we’re not even talking about cutting taxes. We’re talking about keeping tax revenues where they are [by making the Bush tax cuts permanent] and cleaning up all the junk in the tax code for a flatter, fair, simpler tax system. So we’re not talking about cutting taxes. We want to keep the tax revenues where they are and fix the tax code. And with respect to all the spending—you know, that partisan-spending rhetoric—if you don’t fix entitlements, Charlie, if you don’t get spending under control, there’s not going to be any money left for those other things, for roads, for bridges, for education, for the environment. So I’m amazed that he would use that kind of hyperbolic, hyperventilating rhetoric to describe our plan.
I find it interesting that last week we heard William Lane Craig chastise the child Sam Harris for making “stupid and insulting” remarks about Christians, we are now getting Paul Ryan making similar assessments of our naive, childish President. Have Christians and conservatives finally reached their limit of tolerating stupidity and incompetence?
WINTERY KNIGHT 