Something old becomes something new AGAIN.

Cory Booker Wants to Establish ‘A White House Office of Reproductive Freedom’

As Democrats broadcast their strong support for legalized abortion, Presidential aspirant Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) released a “Plan to Advance Reproductive Rights” which includes a pledge to establish “a White House Office of Reproductive Freedom.”  [snip]

It seems that this was tried back in the ’70’s. If we remember correctly, it was called the “Free Love” decade; The attendant increase in STD’s and abortions rivals anything that the Senator can conjure up. Reproductive activity boomed all across campus dorms and in private dwellings. Such goings on increased the STD; Abortions became a popular weekend activity for the naifs who believed either in divine protection, the rhythm method or just woeful ignorance. All this frolic screeched to a halt when AIDS entered the sport.

A factor ignored by the Senator is the preponderance of black teen and twenty crowd having abortions. It is not an oversight that the majority of these clinics in or adjacent to black neighborhoods. Margaret Sanger’s belief n Eugenics is as potent today as back in her time and guides Planned Parenthood.


Here in South Carolina, a woman just killed two of her kids; she’s been arrested and charged with a double murder.

A her advisor, I shall guide her into claiming she only committed this act:

Postpartum Abortion.

Can someone disabuse me of this activity as law.

Daily Insanity


Toon in

Toon in

Toon in

Idiot’s Corner

One can only wonder how Kasich stays in the Republican Party. In the 2016 election primaries for President, Kasich came in behind everyone including himself.

John Kasich To Veto 6-Week Abortion Ban And Gun Rights Bill

Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich told reporters Monday that he will veto both a bill banning abortion in the presence of an unborn baby’s heartbeat as well as a bill eliminating the duty to retreat before using deadly force.

Kasich told reporters that he still opposes both the “heartbeat bill” abortion ban and the “stand your ground” gun rights legislation, and will veto both measures if they reach his desk, The Columbus Dispatch reported Tuesday.

The Ohio House of Representatives passed House Bill 258, also called the heartbeat bill, in a 58-35 vote on Nov. 15, according to Cleveland.com. The bill bans abortion upon the presence of a baby’s heartbeat and makes exceptions only in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. No exceptions for rape, incest or baby abnormalities are included in the bill.

A heartbeat typically becomes detectable between six and nine weeks gestation. The heartbeat bill is commonly known as the 6-week abortion ban. [snip]

The Ohio House also passed House Bill 228 on Nov. 14, stripping from the law the “duty to retreat” before using deadly force when presented with a threat, according to The Dispatch. Critics fear the bill will escalate tension-filled situations and introduce deadly force where other solutions might be possible, while proponents argue the legislation will give victims a better chance to protect themselves in violent scenarios. [snip]

The Ohio Senate must pass both measures before they head to Kasich’s desk. If the measures pass by wide enough margins, lawmakers can override Kasich’s veto power.

Kasich’s impending veto on House Bill 228 follows a number of recent shootings, including mass shootings at a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh, country bar in California and hospital in Chicago. [snip]

What the shootings given as the reason for the proposed veto is of no comparison unless it is the duty of the citizenry to become a target. The abortion fight is going to go on until a proper bill to ban abortions reaches SCOTUS. At that point we shall see how the Court.

The accomplishment of Planned Parenthood

Idiot’s Corner

Headline WaPo




Margaret Sanger couldn’t have written a better lede with or without the guidance of Der Fuehrer himself.

Washington Post Editor Advocates Eugenics Claiming It’s Her Right to Kill Babies With Down Syndrome

Washington Post deputy editorial page editor, Ruth Marcus, penned an op-ed yesterday defending the “right” to selectively kill babies inside the mother’s womb who have been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The piece is filled superfluous nonsense that matters neither here, nor there in the main point of her argument. Marcus is not defending killing babies due to perceived disabilities, but rather asserting her belief that a woman should be able to kill the baby inside her womb at anytime and for whatever reason, without question.

“There is a new push in antiabortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong,” Marcus starts off.

She then goes on to say that it’s a difficult subject to write about because “there are so many parents who have — and cherish — a child with Down syndrome.”

Then, rather perversely, Marcus pauses to mention how cute the new Gerber baby is. “Many people with Down syndrome live happy and fulfilled lives. The new Gerber baby with Down syndrome is awfully cute.” [snip]

“I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision,” Marcus states.

But, really none of that matters. To her, it is not about Down syndrome. It is 100% about the desires and wants of the mother, irregardless of the child she carries.

“Which brings us to the Supreme Court. North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Louisiana passed legislation to prohibit doctors from performing abortions if the sole reason is because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome; Utah’s legislature is debating such a bill.”

“These laws are flatly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, reaffirmed in 1992, that “it is a constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy.” Of the woman. As U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded in striking down the Indiana law in September, the high court’s determination “leaves no room for the state to examine, let alone pro­hibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.”

“Technological advances in prenatal testing pose difficult moral choices about what, if any, genetic anomaly or defect justifies an abortion. Nearsightedness? Being short? There are creepy, eugenic aspects of the new technology that call for vigorous public debate,” writes Ruth, alluding to the fact that it possible that it is wrong for a mother to kill her offspring simply because the child could have traits that she does not want. [snip]

Under that logic, abortion should be available from conception until the time of birth. And, it should be perfectly acceptable for a mother to practice eugenics by carefully choosing which child of desired traits she allows to live and which she kills. Marcus, writing for a mainstream paper such as the Washington Post, highlights the extremism that pro-abortion individuals have taken their message. For conservatives, “in the end,” the argument is not about what kind of life a Down syndrome baby may lead, it is about at what point will society stop allowing the murder of innocents simply because the mother does not want their child.

Let us posit for the moment it is her right to terminate the pregnancy because of the fetus having a trait unwanted. Suppose that testing proved the fetus has a genetic deformity that will cause voting Democrat, homosexuality, being a Snowflake, tendencies toward Liberalism, cross dressing, or fey flower arranging. All undesirable traits, are they not?


Day by Day