Pinellas (FL) NOW chapter threatens strike...No abortion then no sex!!

Article from FL is full of quotes that will make great punch lines somewhere. Well that will show em! No abortion....okay they say NO SEX!! We will abstain from sex....well there you go. Maybe this can catch on!

"If they ban abortion, we’re going on strike. No sex,” said Peggy Goodale, of Pinellas Park."

"And we don’t wear bras anymore, so there’s nothing to burn,” added fellow member Sandra Jelricky, "

HT Jivin J

NOW: forced to condemn Maher for sexist Palin joke... a waste of our time, they are busy defending abortion.....

You can only be defended by NOW if you support abortion. Alleged comedian Bill Maher attempts a  joke about Sarah Palin that is clearly sexist but when Fox News contacted National Organization for Women (NOW)  for  comment, they refused  stating they have a policy not to talk to Fox News. Now that's grown up!  After pressure, they finally released a statement showing their linguistic talent.

"Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs."

Clearly annoyed that they were called on  the carpet over this they had to send their parting shot to those nasty conservatives...

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend, Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass."

So hard to be defending women of all political persuasions and  OMG imagine  having to give a comment to a network you despise. They should just change their name to National Organization for Abortions Supporting Women(NOASW). Then they would not have to waste  their time trying to defend those of like gender they despise .


photo:Reuters

Pro Choice Wendy Murphy former sex crimes prosecutor calls out NOW and PP!!

"In yet another damning tape, a Planned Parenthood employee is heard giving advice about birth control for underage girls to a man posing as a pimp. Laura [Ingraham  filling in for Bill] welcomed attorney Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor. "What disturbs me most," Murphy said, "is that Planned Parenthood likes to present itself as 'the great liberator' of women, but we are talking about the ultimate act of subjugation - sexual trafficking and rape of female children. The woman in this tape didn't say a word about the fact that this guy was basically acknowledging that he was selling kids for sex. I'm pro choice, but I'm disgusted and I'd like to hear from NOW or any women's organization that claims to give a damn about women's freedom and safety. Where are they?"

NOW hates Lila Rose for telling the truth about PP. NOW has really jumped the shark

What a group. She tells the truth about how PP is exploiting women and they hate her for it.

From Live Action.com

"NOW or the National Organization for Women protested Live Action President Lila Rose’s speech in Indianapolis, Indiana earlier this week with a message of hate. One sign in particular read, “95% of women HATE Lila”. "

 I had the pleasure of hearing Lila Rose in person. What an inspiration and what a delightful young lady. Nothing to hate there.

Another MSM admits the pro life side is winning...Newsweek

Hey, I thought the MSM said that the March for Life this past year was nothing but a few old gray haired ladies. They must have been looking at the pro abortion side. Read this article from Newsweek.


"This past January, when Keenan's train pulled into Washington's Union Station, a few blocks from the Capitol, she was greeted by a swarm of anti-abortion-rights activists. It was the 37th annual March for Life, organized every year on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe.I just thought, my gosh, they are so young," Keenan recalled. "There are so many of them, and they are so young." March for Life estimates it drew 400,000 activists to the Capitol this year."


How can the next generation defend abortion rights when they don't think abortion rights need defending?

By Sarah Kliff
NEWSWEEK

Published Apr 16, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Apr 26, 2010

When the history of the 21st century is written, March 21, 2010, will go down as the day Congress cleared the way for health-care reform. Yet for those in the abortion-rights community, March 21 will mark a completely different turning point: the day when they became acutely aware of their waning influence in Washington. The Democratic Party has, since 1980, supported a woman's right to an abortion. But in 2008 it decided to broaden its appeal by running an unprecedented number of anti-abortion-rights candidates in socially conservative swing districts. That move helped secure a robust House majority for the Democrats.

But abortion-rights supporters could no longer count on that majority to vote their way. The shift first became clear during the health-care debate, when abortion-rights supporters found their cause rather easily brushed aside in pursuit of another, larger goal. Anti-abortion Democrats, most notably the now retiring Rep. Bart Stupak, pressed for stringent abortion restrictions. While Stupak's desired language did not ultimately survive, the final health-care law was more than a psychological setback: it requires separate payments for abortion coverage on the public exchange. The strict accounting rules could well prove so onerous that insurers drop abortion coverage altogether.

So if Democrats won't stand strong for abortion rights, who will? The predicament weighed particularly heavily on NARAL Pro-Choice America, the country's oldest abortion-rights group. Founded in 1969 as the National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, NARAL has helped protect Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, against countless legislative challenges. NARAL president Nancy Keenan had grown fearful about the future of her movement even before the health-care debate. Keenan considers herself part of the "postmenopausal militia," a generation of baby-boomer activists now well into their 50s who grew up in an era of backroom abortions and fought passionately for legalization. Today they still run the major abortion-rights groups, including NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.

These leaders will retire in a decade or so. And what worries Keenan is that she just doesn't see a passion among the post-Roe generation—at least, not among those on her side. This past January, when Keenan's train pulled into Washington's Union Station, a few blocks from the Capitol, she was greeted by a swarm of anti-abortion-rights activists. It was the 37th annual March for Life, organized every year on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe. "I just thought, my gosh, they are so young," Keenan recalled. "There are so many of them, and they are so young." March for Life estimates it drew 400,000 activists to the Capitol this year. An anti-Stupak rally two months earlier had about 1,300 attendees.


New NARAL research, conducted earlier this year and released exclusively to NEWSWEEK, only amplified Keenan's fears. A survey of 700 young Americans showed there was a stark "intensity gap" on abortion. More than half (51 percent) of young voters (under 30) who opposed abortion rights considered it a "very important" voting issue, compared with just 26 percent of abortion-rights supporters; a similar but smaller gap existed among older voters, too. Worse still for NARAL, the millennials surveyed didn't view abortion as an imperiled right in need of defenders. As one young mother in a focus group told NARAL, it seemed to her that abortion was easily accessible. How did she know? The parking lot at her local clinic, she told them, was always full.

Millennials are more likely than their boomer parents to see abortion as a moral issue. In the NARAL focus groups, young voters flat-out disapproved of a woman's abortion, called her actions immoral, yet maintained that the government had absolutely no right to intervene. As one young woman in Denver said, "I only get mad when [a friend] tries telling me, 'It is like nothing, oh well, it is just an abortion.'?" It wasn't the abortion itself that seemed to trouble the woman; rather, it was her friend's nonchalance. "Even if it was like nothing," the woman told NARAL, "it was something."
Certainly, the anti-abortion movement helped fuel this shift in the attitudes of the young by reframing the abortion debate around the fetus rather than the pregnant woman. Millennials also came of age as ultrasounds provided increasingly clear pictures of fetal development. "The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being," admits former NARAL president Kate Michelman. "The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end." Thirty-eight states now consider it a separate crime to kill a fetus in an act of aggression against a pregnant woman, and just last week Nebraska banned abortions after 20 weeks because of the possibility that the fetus could feel pain.

Palin Vs. NOW

Palin vs. NOW

Tim Tebow is the home schooled college quarterback who uses the eye black to list biblical quotes.He was born in 1987 after his mother refused to get an abortion even though she was told he likely would be stillborn.

Nice story that seems to gnaw at the pro-abortion crowd.

So an anti-abortion group passed the plate around and collected enough money so that Tebow and his mom could tell their story in a Super Bowl ad.

Pro-abortion groups lobbied CBS to get it to refuse the ad. CBS said get bent.

Sarah Palin weighed in.

From her Facebook: “NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances).”

NOW President Terry O’Neill fired back: “The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion. Focus on the Family has cynically set it up so they can say anyone who disagrees with airing this ad is disrespecting one woman and her choice. NOW respects every woman’s right to plan her own family and insists our laws do the same.”