“Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz published an opinion piece in USA Today using Fox News talking points to advocate for the full defunding of Planned Parenthood,” mediamatters.com reports. “That could result in millions of Americans losing access to crucial health care — all thanks to a handful of lies pushed by conservative media.” Do you see where I’m going here? Try it this way . . .
“In an opinion piece in USA Today, the paper’s editors used anti-gun talking points to advocate for improved background checks. That could result in millions of Americans losing access to crucial gun rights – all thanks to a handful of lies pushed by liberal media.”
The irony would be delicious if it wasn’t so revolting. Media Matters’ pro-Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion position is so virulent they’re completely oblivious to their double-standard. That applies to their condemnation of the methods used to expose Planned Parenthood’s perfidy.
“Cruz’s August 20 op-ed relies heavily on the deceptive videos from the Center for Medical Progress, which used possibly-illegal methods to capture undercover conversations with Planned Parenthood figures. Those videos cropped out crucial context to demonize the organization’s abortion procedures. Cruz provides no evidence of wrongdoing, but demands both that Planned Parenthood’s federal funding must end and that the Department of Justice must prosecute “any potential criminal actions.”
Anyone remember the recent New York City gun store scam? States United To Prevent Gun Violence created a fake gun store, then used paid actors to generate fake outrage over the fake history of fake guns – without once mentioning the artifice. While it wasn’t illegal – the organizers convinced New York City authorities to issue a permit for the production – it was the dictionary definition of agitprop. Unlike the PP video, which was the dictionary definition of documentary.
Media Matters’ inability to recognize the mote in their own eye is reflected by the headline hovering over their hypocrisy: How The Right-Wing Media Is Orchestrating A Public Health Crisis. I guess Media Matters forgot that their friends in the left-wing media have been busy promoting the antis’ meme of the year: “gun violence” as a “public health crisis.” To wit . . .
Is gun violence a public health issue? (CBS); Is Gun Violence a Matter of Public Health? (PBS); Surgeon General Nominee is Right – Guns Are a Public Health issue (NBC); Experts: Gun Violence Is Public Health Crisis in US (VOA); Gun injuries are a public health emergency (LA Times)
And so on. It’s funny that the liberal media is all about a woman’s right to choose abortion, but completely against a woman’s right to choose a gun to protect herself against rape. Or protect her children. And the anti-gun pro-abortion media can’t see the contradiction. Funny peculiar, I mean.
Oxymoron of the day, thoughtful liberal. If you apply critical, logical thinking and provide facts in context, most liberal crusades will fall apart like a Kleanex in a washing machine. But all that will be irrelevant, because they know how they feel.
THIS is why Ben Carson needs to campaign for somebody ELSE and then accept the post of Surgeon General in place of the BUCK TOOTHED FREAK Murthy whose sole credential is fundraising for the Usurper.
But think of the children. If it only saves one life. Oh wait, that’s not right, we’re talking about Planned Parenthood here.
The irony in that statement!!
“That could result in millions of Americans losing access to crucial health care …”
BULLLLL$4!T
Teaching hospitals and their satellite/outreach campuses and clinics offer medical services in ALL specialities at little or no cost.
To argue that PP is somehow indispensable and the only source of these services is sheer utter nonsense.
It’s all part of the Big Lie. The ACA pretty much guarantees women’s services so PP as a healthcare provider, as you say, is complete nonsense.
I think there is a general denial in the media that there are people involved in these scandals headed for real, actual prison. Won’t be the CEO of PP in this case or Hilary herself over emails, but somebody’s going down.
guns bad abortion good.
try and keep up
Lol Media Matters. As if they’re one to talk about dishonest reporting.
The progressive left is all about limiting our freedoms on every turn except when it comes to baby killing .
Too much salt , too much soda , too many eggs , too much fat ,
air bags , seat belts , slow down , don’t run , don’t smoke , don’t fart ,
can’t let little Johnny drive that tractor , can’t buy all of that kind of fertilizer , can’t fill in that swamp ,
can’t kill that mouse , can’t kill that hawk , can’t kill that deer or turkey right now , can’t fish yet ,
guns are bad , automatic guns are real bad , can’t have this gun , can’t have that gun , register this gun , register that suppressor , can’t have that many bullets in a magazine ,
that’s an assault rifle , those are armor piercing , on and on , you don’t have a Right to do this you don’t have a Right to do that , immunization , mandatory health care ( coming soon ) ……………………. but kill as many babies as you want , it’s your Right . I have seen where several politicians have gone on record to say they believe it should be permissible to kill a child up to the point it leaves a hospital . We will all be judged for allowing this slaughter to continue , this is one of the reasons why we have the 2nd A , protect the innocent .
I have seen where several politicians have gone on record to say they believe it should be permissible to kill a child up to the point it leaves a hospital . Some of the politicians taking this position should be allowed to be terminated up to the point and after where they leave the hospital.
Question: is that just until someone leaves the hospital for the first time in their life, or is it a “anytime you’re in the hospital you’re free game” kind of thing?
Mark, you have just encapsulated msnbc, mother jones, and likely every single left wing “progressive” blowhard.
I need a tissue for my nose and a mop for the floor.
You would think that the liberals would get more future voters if abortion was illegal, but we are dealing with real white privilege, rich, elite, power hungry, ivy league liberals such as Hitlery Cliton.
That’s why they want to bring in all the people from Latin America and provide amnesty for them: to refill their voter base.
We need to get Shannon on record as being in support of abortion so we can undermine her “for the children” and “super mom of 5” crap
I’m pretty sure that the politicians who support abortion are also those that oppose guns. Our objective is to defeat anti-gun politicians. If we can do so by pointing-out their pro-abortion positions, why should we refrain from doing so?
Pro-gun people are already apt to be anti-abortion; albeit, not necessarily. In any case, Pro-gun people are apt to have made up their minds on the abortion issue.
Anti-abortion people do not necessarily have a position about guns. Many may be uncommitted about guns. Anything we can do to mobilize anti-abortion people to vote-out pro-abortion politicians will have the desired side-effect.
I am in support of unlimited abortion, for the children…..
I am in support of unlimited abortion, OF the children…..
FIFY
As I heard a wise man say the other day. Why do we need Planned Parenthood anymore? That’s what Obamacare is for.
I thought this was a gun site, not an anti-abortion one. Reading about abortion here is getting really old, and it’s going to start costing you readers if you keep it up.
The intent of bringing this up here is to illustrate the disingenuous arguments that the Left comes up with.
The exposure of their undying support for Planned Parenthood after crimes were exposed [or at the least stomach’s turning if you care about life at all] are typical of Liberal policy where they hide their agenda with things deemed ‘good.’ In reality they try and accomplish something quite different than is proposed.
Abortion? It is legal but do not use one CENT of my tax money to support this killing of the unborn!
Somebody could say the same about background checks or the military in offensive operations or a whole assortment of issues.
The truth of the matter is this: we’re all in it together. A portion of your taxes are going to go to planned parenthood (which primarily offers STD screenings, mammograms, and contraceptions but also does do abortion services) and people on the left are going to pay for background checks and wars in far off places. Welcome to living in a democratic republic.
Planned Parenthood does not OFFER mammograms, they refer women to other (real?) clinics for mammograms. BIG difference.
Whether they offer or refer, they still offer a way for women to get mammograms. This also has no effect on the work they do distributing sexual health information, contraceptives, and STD testing.
Your last paragraph, I see your point on not wanting to spend taxpayer dollars, BUT, how do you feel about spending many times more dollars supporting the child, and the mother, along with her other 5 kids, because she can’t work, because she can’t afford a sitter.
Many years ago I was going with a gal that had 4 kids, all small. My friend was working full time, but not making very much. Her sister did the baby sitting for $25 a week, but had to leave. There was another relative that said she could watch the kids but couldn’t do it for less than $40 a week. The mother simply couldn’t afford it, she asked the state if they could help pay for the sitter. They said no! but told her she could quit working and the state would pick up the whole tab, Not only did the state pay for all the food, and other essentials, they paid all the medical bills to boot!
She ended up with a bigger bank account than she had when she was working.
This is the shame of the earth. Too many babies being born to parents who for one reason or the other, simple cannot afford to raise a child.
I believe, indirectly, this will eventually irradicate the humane race to extinction.
In the mean time we will all be paying for your neighbors rat pack!
The intent of government “help” is not help at all, as depicted by your example. The intent of government “help” is to make the recipient dependent on said government for obvious reasons.
I agree. I don’t have a uterus, but I have plenty of guns. I’m sticking with what I know.
Well I do, and I’m also getting tired of it. TTAG is becoming more and more of a party line echo chamber blog.
Your post directly refutes your assertion.
Actually Michelle I do believe this story’s intent is to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the gun grabbers . If we can save one child from being murdered we should try out of the gun grabber side of the mouth and go ahead and vacuum out that fetus ( child ) from the pro woman’s Rights side of the mouth . It is an imbalance that is being addressed .
Please , allow the conversation to continue and if it is offensive , go to the next post . We all have a iron in the fire when it comes to firearm interest and there are hundreds of topics on here every week . In love and prayers , God bless .
I like the gun talk the best, but if news about gun control belongs here then analyzing the methods and psychology of those that are attacking our civil rights IMO belongs.
I think the article is trying to make a valid point that the people that run anti gun/ anti gun owner campaigns, are the same people that run the extreme pro abortion propaganda. Anti gun/pro abortion are running “ends justifies the means” campaigns with any argument that appears to work is fair game.
We all know this at a basic level that the media and the groups that push these themes are doing this, but exposing the shallow nature of their contrived arguments helps us fight those dishonest arguments.
I’m am not pro abortion, but very much pro contraception. The problem is 90 percent of the people who go after planed parenthood think no one should have sex until they are married. They want to restrict access to contraception also. I remember in high school what a “scandal” it was that you could get condoms from the nurse, but if Jenny went on “vacation” for 6 months no one was screaming at the school board. What pisses me off, is that most abortions should not be happening in the first place. And to be honest , Planed Parenthood probably does more to prevent abortions then to facilitate them.
A lot of folks on the right want contraception to be available over the counter. The left fights this because they start to lose control of the argument. The right doesn’t want to limit contraception, we just don’t want to have to pay for everyone else’s.
I don’t have a problem picking up the tab for contraceptives when we’re talking about the 16 year old children who are just going to have sex anyway and they can’t ask a parent or guardian for advice. We cannot legislate away the teenage years. There needs to be a support system in place for these kids so they don’t ruin their lives by getting pregnant or getting an STD.
When we are talking about adults who should be able to pay for their own contraceptives then I’m more for the OTC birth control options.
As an abstinent 21 year old male I say effing teach your kids right and and wrong. “Teenage years” is just a pathetic excuse for lazy/ignorant/selfish parents not instilling any sense of moral uprightness in their children.
Evolution teaches that we are technically no better than animals, so why act any better, am I right?
I’m with you 100%
We wouldn’t have near the problem with abortion, if folks would be responsible about sex.
Years ago I read a book, I think it was named, “The Population Bomb”. In it, the author told of how they planned to limit birth.
The plan was to take a sperm sample from all males when they reached puberty. Then, later in life when they showed there marriage was successful, and they were fully capable of supporting a child, their wives would be inseminated with some of the sperm, and Bingo, they got a rug rat!
A lot of folks would think this would be a barbarous measure. When the worlds population gets to 20 billion, maybe not so much.
To anyone who would even suggest this nonsense as a fix to the problem: Unalienable rights; not actually a solution; screw you; etc….
Sounds like a great plan. And when you prove yourself responsible enough “they” will allow you to own a gun. And “they’ll” allow you to chose your food as well… Now that you’re a big boy. Are you crazy? Allowing someone else to control your reproduction? Go back to progtopia you nut job.
The problem is 90 percent of the people who go after planed parenthood think no one should have sex until they are married.
Nice parroting of your lefty professor and HRC.
Hey you forgot the War On Women(TM) lie also.
Might want to read the Republican’s own platform, doesky:
“We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage”
https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/
States that teach abstinence-only have higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher teen repeat pregnancy rates.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22022362
One wonders if that also leads to higher abortion rates.
The racist hypocrite progressive left will do what is necessary to take gun civil rights away from everyone, and reduce the number of dark skinned people from being born. They are just evil.
It is a shame there is so much combativeness between races. but! do you really think the main problem is “skin color”
I am married to an Asian, and in the summer, her skin get very dark, but I don’t love her any less.
Black folks are always bringing up the issue of “skin color”, and frankly, I’m tired of hearing it. Maybe it’s just an excuse, so they don’t have to admit that just maybe there are other reasons there is so much anger.
Take Michael Brown. Because of his size, he thought he could “bully” his way through life. Then he thought he was invincible, and attacked a white police officer.
I wonder how many of the black population said he was shot “because of his skin color”
Just like we don’t like “common sense” gun control, women don’t like “common sense” restriction’s on how they take care of their bodies. It’s not up to men to tell women how to do that. Just like we like to quote 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is democracy, and a well armed sheep is liberty. I hope that you understand the principle behind this quote is that the majority cannot take rights away from the minority. All this can be solved with one simple program. When teenage boy’s reach puberty they have to give a sperm sample to the government, then they get a vasectomy so they can’t impregnate anyone. When their tax return say’s they are married they can withdraw some sperm to have children. As we all know 100% of pregnancies are caused by the male of the species.
You want to put the government in charge of your sperm?
Probably not, BUT, who else? The average “Joe Blow” and “Plump Peggy” certainly have shown they are incapable of getting their shit together, and keeping it there!
What a woman does with her body is between her and God whether she believes in Him or not. Once conception takes place the baby is a separate person from the mother. The baby is not part of the mother’s body. She’s just carrying another human being inside of her who should have all the rights of any other human being. The placenta keeps the mother’s immune system from destroying the baby. We promote guns to protect life on this forum. It is hypocritical not to want to protect life in the womb. Having an abortion is exactly like hiring a hit man to kill someone. And all the mental gymnastics that people go through to avoid that reality doesn’t change the truth.
Squatters rights?
Yeah redneck Pete and trailer trash Tina can’t be trusted with guns so let’s let the government decide when all the rest of us are eligible to own them. Only an insane person puts the government in charge of their and other peoples reproduction. Go back to China.
Logically, every state that allows for abortion on demand should allow for immediate, no background check gun purchases.
Could of used the same “replace with” after Kate Steinle was killed by the illegal alien. Replace “you can’t hold every undocumented immigrant responsible for this one murderer” with gun owner in place of undocumented immigrant. Can’t remember who the liberal guest was on Fox at the time, but it was at least 5 minutes of gold about how personal responsibility applied for that one illegal immigrant in that one instance.
I don’t think that the two issues (abortion and firearms) are in any way comparable. But if they were, then it’s pretty clear that both the left and the right share the same view that the government can deny one while promoting the other. It’s just a matter of whose ox is gored. As always.
+1
The correct answer to almost all questions like this is “it isn’t the federal government’s business”. That is the only constitutionally-sanctioned, limited government answer.
Anything else is desiring big government to swoop in and enforce your personal version of morality.
The difference between the two, as I see it, is that protecting oneself (as with firearms) is a natural right. Please tell us how people have a natural right to murder an unborn child.
PP has jack-all to do with abortion in my state. We have one, yes one, abortion provider in the entire state. And he is not associated at all with PP. PP provides healthcare to many women here that they can’t get elsewhere. This whole “campaign” is just more so-con bullshit that drives people away from voting R.
Your mistake is not realizing that the left has a double standard for everything, not just abortion.
Puck planned parenthood! /thread.
Lighten up Pete. This Sunday, time for the parents and family to get together and talk about it.
Big +1 to TTAG-so much for those who think you’re too left-wing Jewish…and I don’t come here every day for gun/gear reviews,hunting stuff,debating religion,gay marriage or even making a witty remark on a photo. I belong to more of a dozen FB groups for that. I’m mainly here for 2A politics. And the leftards are all about taking my 2A rights away…
To be fair, it also reveals the Rights double standard on abortion. I think the political parties need have a conference and swap sides because they obviously have their issues confused.
First of all the planned parent hood is an edited video.
Second in 1997 law was passed so no Federal dollars go to abortions.
Third this is just like the “more gun laws or outright confiscation.”
How?
Ignore the facts and take or restrict gun use from/by the people who are law abiding citizens.
All for political motive. To get elected. Which is a personal “gravy train.”
30 round mag.
Assault weapon.
Welfare queen.
Anchor baby.
MSNBC/FOX the same thing making their money from sponsors as we take sides with them.
We need actual vigilance and reform in all these areas, but are these Politicos going to do anything but use upsetting catch phrases to scare and stimulate the masses to get the vote?
black lives matter, unless they are babies…
What the fsck is up with all the anti-abortion themed articles lately?!? Is this place a gun blog or an anti-choice soapbox now?
I’m both pro-gun and pro-choice and this flood of “pro-life” posts on a site that used to be focused on gun issues is doing a good job of convincing me that way to many people of the gun are just as stupid and/or uncivilized as most anti-gunners.
Well, I may just be a stupid, uncivilized, pro-gun pro-lifer, but I would like to point out that every single day people choose to steal, choose to rape, and choose to murder. Does this mean laws against theft, rape, and murder are “anti-choice” as well?
JJ48, if you want to appear more civilized, you might begin by responding to actual questions instead of wildly attacking strawmen *you* create. My post has *nothing* to do with laws against anything and trying to create a link between a colloquial name for something and unrelated criminal acts is a primitive attempt at manipulation. Furthermore, one hears PotG complain over and over again that anti-gunners are unable to stay on topic, to use facts instead of emotions, to stay civil and so on and on, so it would be nice from you to follow those guidelines even when it is not a gun-related topic that you’re dealing with.
I’ll try to restate my question and you can give it another go:
Is there a good reason to post so many pro-life articles on a site that’s supposedly focused on gun issues? Especially when the author has to know that it will alienate many pro-gun pro-choice readers? And when the author even goes out of his way to insult and alienate those pro-choice pro-gunners?
Oh, I get it. It’s ok for you to use the emotionally-charged term “anti-choice”, and for you to put the term “pro-life” in scare quotes, but as soon as people call you on it, THEY’RE the ones being told to, “stay on topic”.
But if you really want to know why this article was posted, the short answer is that it’s his site and he can post whatever he wants. The slightly longer answer is that the article IS tied to guns, however tangentially, and was written to point out the double standard of the liberal media. As far as alienating readers goes, I’m sure most people who are offended by the author’s views will simply stop reading posts that they know are liable to offend them. The few who would leave the site completely over such posts probably number few enough that they won’t impact the overall visitor numbers of the site.
I’m not saying I necessarily agree with such a numbers-focused mentality, mind, just that it’s likely why TTAG isn’t too concerned if a couple readers get offended.
Am I the only one that thinks that it might help if we started referring to any instance of a bad person (I wouldn’t want to limit this to a specific gender, especially since we have so many at this point) being removed from the gene pool as a late term abortion?
The founders understood that those who would TAKE power would lie in order to do so. They understood that no argument based in facts and/or logic will sway those who wish to rule you. They also understood that those who would usurp your right to self-government would be willing to commit murder in order to accomplish their goals(the end justifies the means). That is one of the primary reasons they protected INDIVIDUAL rights to keep and bear arms AND stated plainly in their other writings that in order to maintain Liberty, each person MUST keep, bear, and train with arms, and stockpile ammo to the degree that they could put down any attempt to steal liberty. It’s not complicated. The world has not changed, not one iota. Only technology has changed. People are the same as they have always been.
Quite honestly, anyone making even the most rudimentary pretense of being an American Conservative, should favor defunding Planned Parenthood simply because it is not mentioned directly and specifically as any of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers. Dicking around with whether it supposedly “helps” or “hurts” children, one is already playing the Progressives’ game; and hence taking part in the rot.
Personally, I’ve always found the guns abortion analogy far more effective than the gun automobile one.
Both are rights that claim protection in the Constitution, though only one is explicit.
One has preserved far more lives that it has taken, while the other ensures death.
One promotes moral behavior, while the other encourages a breakdown of key social structures.
Both are considered “choices.”
I’ve never seen anything get Progressives frothing at the mouth faster. If there is any sort of audience, then it is almost always a two-fold win. It usually sways at least a couple of people not only by the logic in which the position can be presented, but by the irrationality and outrage it triggers in progressives.
Well, I’ve always found the attempts to link gun rights with the abortion debate nonsensical and based on ideology and religion instead of facts.
Look, I’m not an American, and this fact sometimes helps one see things from a different perspective. I live in a country where the vast majority of population – and of gun owners too – is pro-choice. Trying to ban abortions by law is generally considered immoral, inefective, barbaric and a sign of religious bias. In fact this is such a settled non-issue here that I don’t remember a ban ever being seriously considered during my lifetime, even though one hears some people suggest it from time to time. Yet we are a country with shall-issue carry permits.
You would be correct in pointing out that truth is not decided by majority vote. But I’m not trying to find the truth about abortions. I’m simply pointing out that it is possible for a majority of population to be pro-choice on the abortion issue while having gun laws far more permissive than many places in the US do. So from my perspective, the links between being pro-gun and being pro-life are just one of the peculiar oddities of US politics, not something inherent in the nature of those matters.
Comments are closed.