Ha.
The rest of the article is just as good, except not as honest about the whole “anti-choicers are hypocritical extremists” thing. Actually, not honest at all. And by “not honest at all,” I mean “packed full of more lies that your average statement by Dick Cheney.” Below the fold, the article itself, and my translations bolded in brackets.
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, January 26, 2007 (pop.org/LifeSiteNews.com) – Democratic leaders in Congress have quietly begun the next phase of their new strategy to divide and demonize pro-life Americans [Democrats are promoting education, contraception, and other tried-and-true methods of lowering the abortion rate. Pro-life groups oppose these measures, demonstrating that they don’t actually want to lower the abortion rate. Therefore, it is the Democrats’ fault that they look bad]. This strategy includes targeting crisis pregnancy centers because of their tremendous success [and by “tremendous success” we mean “accepting federal and state money to lie, coerce and mislead women, all with blatant religious interests”], a strategy led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee thanks to last fall’s election results.
Waxman and others are miffed because CPCs tell women about the incontrovertible connection between abortion and breast cancer [and by “incontrovertable connection,” I actually mean “no connection at all, as proven by numerous scientific studies and a detailed review conducted by the National Cancer Institute with participation from more than 100 of the world’s leading experts on pregnancy and breast cancer risk, wherein only one person filed a dissent, and that person is a born-again pro-life Christian”]. He is also the Democrats’ point man against teaching children to abstain from sexual relations [He is also the Democrat who released the Waxman Report, which shone a bright light on all the anti-choice lies that right-wingers are teaching kids in sex ed class, like the ideas that AIDS can be spread through tears, women are simpering idiots and sexual objects, and being gay, having sex or terminating a pregnancy will probably make you kill yourself, if those behaviors don’t do the job for you. Waxman supports promoting abstinence and giving students accurate information about sexual help, which I will tell you is tantamount to driving them to a brothel and handing them a wad of bills]. Yet going after CPCs is unlikely to divide pro-lifers or go far in demonizing us outside of the Dems’ base voters.
More insidious is the issue of contraception [because we’re quacks who oppose it, and in our opposition to it, substantially increase the number of abortions]. Having learned the hard way that the unabashed celebration of abortion was losing them votes [take this election cycle, for example, where pro-lifers in South Dakota saw a major victory and… oh wait…], Democrats in the last election cycle sought to portray themselves as moderate on the issue and even recruited a fair number of pro-life candidates to run for Congress, with considerable success. Now that they have taken control of our national legislature, they must appear to care about reducing abortion while not doing anything that would actually reduce abortion and alienate their fanatically pro-death base [except to use those methods which actually do reduce abortion — see outcomes in Belgium, Germany and Norway — instead of tried-and-true conservative methods, which have left conservative religious nations on continents like Latin America plagued with illegal abortion and, as a corollary, high maternal and infant mortality rates], and at the same time isolate truly pro-life Americans in the minds of the so-called “abortion grays [the Democratic plan to actually decrease the abortion rate through educating people about making contraception more widely available is horribly threatening to the “truly” pro-life Americans — i.e., me and a handful of my powerful, extremist friends — because the vast majority of people who self-identify as pro-life do actually want to see the abortion rate decrease, and this would reveal us for the extremist hypocrites we actually are].”
These are American voters who have qualms about abortion but do not wish it outlawed, and are thus susceptible to appeals from either side of the abortion divide [some crazy Americans think women are people]. Most abortion grays view as unpleasantly extremist both the NARAL, Barbara Boxer types who embrace even partial-birth abortion [who can’t embrace something that pro-life groups made up, but who oppose ideologues interfering with public health and medical treatment] and principled anti-abortion activists who believe every single unborn child should be saved however inconvenient he may be [extremists who believe fetuses to be equipped with super-human rights which should allow them to use another’s body for their own survival, a right not given to any born people, but which we’re willing to impose because it only impacts women and they’re not really deserving of full human rights anyway. Plus, pregnancy is an excellent punishment for those women who step out of line and have teh sex without our permission].
Because of Roe v. Wade and political realities, banning most abortions is not on congressional pro-lifers’ agenda for the time being, so pro-abortion forces have found another way to do harm, in more ways than one. Their approach could not only divide and demonize pro-lifers [their approach will demonize us, because let’s be honest, we’re pretty big assholes], but would spread disease among youth, increase their psychic distress, and inflate the number of abortions [their approach has been proven to decrease the rates of STIs, encourage a healthier view of sex, and decrease the abortion rate. Ours, on the other hand, kills and maims hundreds of thousands of women a year, jacks up the abortion rate, and makes even marriage physically unsafe for women].
The Dems’ plan is to promote contraception as a means of reducing abortion [because it works] and watch pro-lifers, who know contraception increases abortion [I have no actual evidence for this, given that, internationally, the countries with the lowest abortion rates have affordable and accessible contraception, and the societies with higher abortion rates don’t encourage contraception use], squirm as the media portrays any opposition to more federal funding for contraceptive programs as hypocritical extremism on the part of pro-lifers [because, well, it is, and it sure does suck to be outed as the hypocritical extremists we are]. Of course, a plan to reduce abortion by increasing contraceptive prevalence has highly persuasive surface plausibility [because it works]. More
contraception means fewer unwanted pregnancies, right [right]? And fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, right? It seems so obvious, common-sensical, and practical.
Yet experience has proven it false [except that it hasn’t]. You don’t need statistics to know this, and this time I will refrain from offering a passel of them [because I don’t have any]. When contraceptive use exploded in the United States during the 1970s, so did the abortion rate [interestingly, since abortion wasn’t legal before the 1970s, the abortion rate wasn’t recorded all that accurately, and the CDC only started recording abortion rates in 1969]. Continued promotion of contraception, including the distribution of free condoms en masse to high-schoolers, in the ‘80s and ‘90s did nothing to reduce the abortion rate [except that while the abortion rate did increase in Reagan’s America, it declined from 1990 until 2001 when, coincidence of all coincidences, it increased; now it’s decreasing again], which has dipped slightly in the past few years—coinciding with a rise in abstinence and anti-abortion attitudes among young people [the abortion rate has been dipping for more than a few years and the most significant declines came in the Clinton era, but feel free to give me the credit]. Foreign countries have experienced the same pattern: Wherever contraceptive use has become widespread, so has abortion [except that the opposite has actually happened]. Far more often than not, they go in tandem, not in opposition [which is why the lowest abortion rates in the world are enjoyed by the contraceptive-happy Germany, Belgium, Norway, Italy, France, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, etc, and ultra-religious nations and nations where women have the least access to contraception and to legal abortion have higher abortion rates than the United States — for example, Nigeria, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Romania, Vietnam and Peru].
Why is this? For one thing, contraception isn’t very effective [99.8% just isn’t good enough]. Some methods work well in the laboratory, but few people conduct their sex lives in laboratories [which is why I oppose actually teaching people how to use contraception properly]. In the real world, contraception fails all the time. In fact, 53% of unplanned pregnancies happen to women who are using contraception [which means that 47% of them happen to women who aren’t using contraception. So if we made contraception more accessible, actually taught people how to use it correctly, and didn’t guilt or demonize women who plan on having sex and protect themselves accordingly, we could really lower the abortion rate].
More fundamentally, the contraceptive mentality causes abortion [except that it’s actually the anti-contraception mentality which causes abortion when you look at the facts, but who needs those?]. When women and girls choose to sleep with men whose children they don’t want [because sex consists of a man imparting his child onto you], they will take steps to ensure those children aren’t born [or they’ll take steps to ensure that those children don’t exist in the first place]. If
contraception fails, they will abort. And because abortion is easily available, these women can be lax about using contraception, knowing there is a cheap and legal fall-back option [For a dude like me who is bankrolled by the pro-life movement, $500-2000 is “cheap”].
Some anti-abortion Democrats, though, are pursuing the pro-contraception strategy. New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who says he opposes abortion, introduced a bill on Congress’ first day this year that would increase funding for contraception and the morning-after pill. Senators Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy have signed on—which should tell you something [girls like it, so it sucks]. Rep. Tim Ryan (D.-Ohio), another abortion opponent, has a bill that would fund more contraception but also provide help to women who decide to carry unplanned pregnancies to term [you know, the things that would help lower the abortion rate]. These sort of bills could split pro-life members of Congress and make those who oppose them seem extreme and heartless [because it would expose them as extreme, heartless people who don’t actually want to decrease the abortion rate and who also don’t really care about women, pregnant or not].
They should remember that contraception increases abortion [except that it doesn’t}. They should also remember that contraceptives give young people a false sense of security, leading them to engage in riskier behavior than they otherwise would even though contraception is of limited effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and disease (and many forms of contraception actually increase disease risks, at least for women) [I’m just throwing as many lies out there as I possibly can right now and hoping some will stick]. Moreover, all forms of artificial contraception cause illness [I keep this vague on purpose, because it is a lie, and if I go much further with it, it’ll be horribly obvious]. For example, there is no doubt that the contraceptive pill increases cancer risks [except for the cancers that contraception decreases the risk of, and the fact that your chances of dying because of pregnancy or childbirth are higher than your chances of dying to contraception, but we’ll ignore that]. Putting more pills into the hands of young women means federal funding for killing American girls [Of course, when comparing the number of contraceptive-related deaths to, say, the maternal mortality rates in countries where abortion is illegal, or the international death rate from illegal abortion, or the maternal mortality rate HERE, contraception-related deaths are pretty low, but let’s gloss over that].
Pro-lifers should be ready for these controversies when the Democratic establishment and their media allies choose to move them to the front burner of American politics.
Truly mind-boggling. And brain-frying. I can’t see straight now.