Friday, October 19, 2012

As more women turn toward Romney, president grasps at straws to discredit him

As the election nears and more women are abandoning President Barack Obama in favor of Mitt Romney, Obama and his campaign are becoming increasingly desperate. So brace yourself for the wild rhetoric and outright lies that will be hurled your way in the coming weeks.

Now that the gender gap is narrowing, Obama is resurrecting his old and false claims that Romney is anti-woman and that the Republicans in general are waging a war on women through "denying" them access to contraception and abortion, and by supporting a wage gap. First of all, in light of the recent tragic shooting of a 14 year-old Muslim girl in Pakistan for daring to express her desire for education, how dare the Democrats even make the claim of any war on women here in America. Shame on them. If anyone is waging a war on women, it is the Muslim extremists who deny their women basic human equalities and shoot little girls for not walking the line.

For the record, Republicans have no plans to deny any woman her precious contraception, and their desire to make abortion rare is not the same as enacting plans to deny women access to it. All Republicans are saying is that people like Sandra Fluke should come up with her own $9 a month to pay for her own contraception - not force Catholics and others morally opposed to such practices to pay for it. If there is a claim to be made that anyone's against women, it would be the liberals' war against the millions of religious women who want no part of another women's birth control, yet are being forced to partake in it. How is it that this simple concept is not only lost on liberals, but then somehow used against Republicans?

And considering that even one abortion in the first trimester increases a woman's chance of developing breast cancer exponentially, Republicans show more concern for women's real health by working toward making abortion rare than do the liberals who treat abortion like a badge of honor. The Democrats' platform used to refer to abortion as something they hope to keep "safe, legal and rare." This year, not only did their platform attempt to remove God (and got booed when they added God back in) but they removed the word "rare" for abortion. They only want it to be safe and legal, and act as though having as many as possible is a good thing. Aside from the cancer risk, Democrats also don't seem to care about the vastly high percentage of women (about 87%) who suffer deep, emotional trauma for years to come after an abortion. And they say Republicans are anti-women?

Obama is also making claims that he will continue to support Planned Parenthood because of the supposed mammograms it performs for women in interest of their health. That is an outright falsehood. Planned Parenthood clinics, at best, refer women for mammograms, but they do not perform them. They perform abortions. The abortions that increase breast cancer risks.

The Democrats are also dragging out the tired accusation of a wage gap that purportedly Republicans embrace. How can the Republicans embrace something that is not even true? The "pay gap" simply looks at the median earnings of all men and women who are full-time workers - not an apple-to-apple comparison of a woman working the exact same job as a man - but because the average of men's earnings overall skew higher, feminists cry discrimination.

The fact is, men and women make different career choices for different reasons. The natural differences between men and women result in different priorities, and therefore, different job ambitions and payscale. Women in general tend to seek jobs that offer comfortable and safe working conditions. In particular, women with children tend to choose lower paying jobs in return for companies that offer work-life balance packages that allow them to be more available for their children. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to seek work that can best support their families, which often means longer hours, and hence more pay on average.

Men also are much more likely to take on higher paying dangerous or physically demanding jobs that most women simply don't want to do. But when the poll numbers show Romney closing in - and even surpassing Obama - with more women starting to see through Obama's lies and, therefore, turning their support toward Romney, the mythical wage-gap scenario is a convenient emotional hotspot to wave in people's faces.

In 2008, Obama made the remark that when you have no substance and nothing to run on, you need to resort to lies, and to make big issues of little ones. Indeed, look who's now desperately making an issue of meaningless things like contraception, false wage-gap conclusions and outright accusations that Romney basically wants women to stay at home and out of the workplace.

Worse, we have record unemployment, record numbers of Americans in poverty and on food stamps, murdered American citizens, including a U.S. Ambassador in a covered-up terrorist attack, diminished standing on the world stage, reckless spending - with more on the way, massive tax increases set for January 1, 2013, and yet the only things theObama campaign can come up with about Romney have to do with ridiculous things like Big Bird and "binders of women" comments.

You have proven your own words to be true, Mr. President. When you have no substance to run on, you must rely on lies and inflammatory rhetoric.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. I wholeheartedly agree about the wage gap, but pretty much every major medical organization says that the abortion-breast cancer link is probably not a thing. Interestingly, the American Cancer Society website on the topic even says that not only is abortion not linked to breast cancer, but carrying a baby to term is.

    Plus, I'm not sure it makes sense for Democrats to WANT more abortion. Put bluntly, the most likely people to have abortions are the urban poor - their biggest voting bloc.

  2. Hi Dan,

    Thanks so much for reading my blog and especially for your comment. I appreciate both!

    I just wanted to point out a couple of things, if I may. The fact that abortion causes breast cancer has been nearly completely suppressed by the media because it is a politically incorrect issue. More than 30 studies have confirmed a relationship between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. For instance, a National Cancer Institute study discovered a distinct link between abortion and breast cancer. In fact, they found that if the abortion was performed before age 18, the risk was increased by 150%. If the woman was over 30 when she had an abortion and had a family history of mother, sister, grandmother, or aunt with breast cancer, the risk went up by 270%. A Howard University study not only confirmed these NCI findings, but it did a longer follow up and found that by the time the women who had an abortion reached the age of 50, the chance of breast cancer had increased by 370%.

    As one example, in Lithuania it's common for women to have had five abortions by the time they reach 25. The country is experiencing an explosive increase in breast cancer in young women.

    One theory for this is that abortion leaves the breast cells in a permanent suspended state where they are neither dormant nor mature and that these cells are susceptible to undergo malignant change. And in fact, the unbroken flow of estrogen in a woman makes her more susceptible to breast cancer in general, hence, having children decreases that risk because the mother gets a nine-month break in estrogen for each child she carries. This could have to do with why celibate nuns are twice as likely after 70 to die of breast cancer as women who've carried children.

    As for the American Cancer Society, they fund grants for Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, so they have good reason to downplay the link between abortion and breast cancer so that they can better ensure people will continue to fund their own organization.

    As for Planned Parenthood, it was founded by Margaret Sanger, the notoriously racist woman who wanted to eliminate the black race. You're right - it seems counterintuitive that the Democrats would encourage a practice that could ultimately deplete a strong voting bloc - but evil has a way of deceiving people into thinking something bad is good. Abortion has been packaged as a litmus test for women's rights, and liberals are all over that, practically tripping over themselves to be the most prominent supporter of that particular woman's right. I think the Devil is laughing all the way.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I hope you have a great day!

  3. Thanks for the response!! However, I still have to disagree about the link between cancer of any type and abortion. When looking at scientific research, we must look at a *consensus*, not just individual studies. Some studies are also inherently better than others; the link I posted goes over recall bias and how it makes for erroneous conclusions.

    I do understand that you don't like the ACS - you make a fair point, though I think that most medical professionals have a reasonable ability to be objective. I will use the NCI then; I could not find your cited source, but in 2003, NCI had a conference about this very issue and found that there wasn't a scientific consensus to definitively show a link between breast cancer and abortion.

    If you want, I would be happy to look at the research you provided if you can point me to a link. It's difficult to find specific articles without a link. For example, I did manage to find the Howard study you mentioned (, and it's important to note that they only looked at African-Americans in a small geographical area, had no socioeconomic or personal information (e.g. age at first child birth), and even says its results are tentative without that information. They also noted that there was possible underreporting of abortion history from their older controls, which would drastically increase the cited risk for older patients.

    The other medical organizations (in addition to the National Cancer Society and the NCI) who recognize the flaws of earlier studies and have supported the idea that there is no consensus: American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which represents over 90% of Ob-Gyn doctors), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (an international equivalent of ACOG), and the World Health Organization.

    Am I saying there is definitively no link? No. It's possible that there is one. However, people who have much more research and clinical experience than you or I say that there is no reason to believe that there is a definitive link.

    There are plenty of other reasons to argue against the libs; we don't need questionable medical data. Seriously, check out the research on the wage gap and just *try* to find anything that says discrimination plays a significant (i.e. more than 2-3 cents) role. It can't be done!

    God bless!

    1. Dan, if you're okay with a woman you love (mother, wife, sister, daughter) having an abortion and taking her chance, then ignore the studies that do show evidence of a link just because someone told you you're supposed to have a whole society of scientists agree 100% on all study results.

      Did you know that scientists are humans, with their own biases and political agendas, and so there will be many who reject the results of studies because of that human flaw? Same goes for organized groups, like the American Cancer Society and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists you cited, who is the same group who supports OTC plan B for teens without parental consent and who completely encourage young teens to be sexually active. Of course it will officially downplay risks of abortion. You just hear their take on the issue and so disregard all the rest. Come on, Dan, you can't be that willing to fall for a few biased groups telling you to reject evidence because there is not a 100% consensus. There never will be 100% consensus. There are some who even disagree that cigarettes cause cancer!

      Here's a good article for you about how abortion/cancer studies are rejected: In it, the article states that one study that rejected other studies' conclusions on the link between breast cancer and abortion "eliminated 14 published studies which had been subjected to peer review confirming the abortion breast cancer link, including a prospective study that showed a 90% increase in breast cancer."

      But because some scientists with an agenda for all we know says those studies couldn't possibly be accurate, you're willing to question and effectively dismiss all the evidence out so that you can be on the safe side. Sometimes you have to see the forest for the trees, though, Dan. Here's another link for you: ....and another:

      Of course, there will still be some who say these studies are nonsense. Believe whomever you wish, but don't say the evidence showing a link is not worthy to believe just because not 100% agree. That is dangerous and unfortunately makes you look like someone who is very easily swayed to a non-position out of fear of being wrong. It's a way to play it safe. Sorry if I sound blunt, I don't mean to. But my goodness, look at the politics everywhere. Nobody will ever agree on everything...but that doesn't discredit everything else to the point that we should dismiss it and blandly say, "it's possible there is" a link as you said above. That is a weak take on strong evidence. Powerful organizations like the ACS and ACOG are more likely the ones with a political agenda than the smaller, though plentiful, independent research centers coming out with studies that do show a link. I'd put my money on the smaller ones over the big money hogs any day.

    2. ITT: "Your sources from actual doctors are biased; here, let me give you stuff from right-wing Catholic groups."

  4. Personally I think some men need to “man up” and take responsibility for their behavior and the children that they help bring into the world. Irresponsible men are more than willing to champion abortion and free birth control for women and are rarely called out on it. Somehow these men are left out of the equation when the Democrats talk about the supposed war on women scenario. But that would entail morality and they wouldn’t want to offend anyone with the notion of treating women with respect. Obama also has a disturbing habit of including his daughters Sasha and Malia when spouting about his claims of the war on women. He brought them up in the last debate and during several campaign events covered by the media. I think it is rather disturbing that a father of young impressionable girls would proclaim that he wants to ensure they will have their futures unhindered and apparently free birth control/abortion will achieve that. What a great dad! What kind of message is that to his kids? Well, I just read that Sandra Fluke was in Reno, Nevada for a Democrat event and was only able to draw 10 people, so perhaps the Democrat’s war on women is being seen for the garbage it is.

    1. Excellent points, Ed B - as always! Especially the parts about how irresponsible guys are often the ones so willing to support abortion, morality in general....and how the President is using his own daughters to score political points at their ultimate expense. It's just unbelievable. Thank you for your comments - I always enjoy them. Have a great day.

  5. To one of the other questions about what evidence is there that the Democrats want to encourage abortions, well what do you think it means that they deliberately took out the word "rare" in their Democrat Platform where it used to say abortions should be "safe, legal and rare." Now it only says safe and legal. How blind does someone have to be not see the obvious of what that means?