Skip to comments.Shocking Time Magazine Cover: After 40 Years, Abortion Activists Losing
Posted on 01/03/2013 12:11:05 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
The mainstream media will get around to covering abortion this month as the nation marks 40 years of legalized abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy via Roe v Wade. Time magazine has released its issue, which comes to a shocking conclusion...
The article makes the pro-abortion case that, while abortion is still legal, it is increasingly difficult to access thanks to the closing of so many abortion clinics and pro-life laws that help women by giving them additional information and alternatives.
The magazine also contains an article from Emily Buchanan of the pro-life womens group Susan B. Anthony List that rebuts what has become the modern talking point for Planned Parenthood and other abortion defenders that abortion is about protecting womens health....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Time Magazine may be trying to make itself relevant by being a bit more balanced...a bit too late, imo.
Perhaps a cover photo of a precious innocent unborn child in utero would have been better than a gynecologist exam chair...but then again, TIME does have standards to uphold.
Conservatism is winning in the states (at least the 24 states where the GOP holds the keys)
For too long the mantra has been “safe, legal, and rare” with emphasis on the first two and scant attention to the last.
High time that “rare” sees its day.
If they are losing why isn’t a single major political party anti-abortion, and why will being pro-life a toxic position to hold nationwide?
I view this cover as a 'call to action' to its liberal readers.
This isn’t specifically about the article, but I noticed something the other day that I’ve never seen before.
This time of year is when all the commercials come for the “Walk for the Cure” comes on. Very emotional and very heart-string tuggy..... I saw one late last night
They used to be footnoted with a Komen Foundation or a Susan G. Komen Foundation tag, but NOWHERE in these advertisements does this show. They show instead a reference to “the3day.org”. It takes a bit to wade through all the Google planting of “the3day.org” listings when you Google it. Several pages worth....many to get to something not linking you to 3 day.
3Day.org is KOMEN...why don’t they say Komen? Because they had been, likely still do, give money to Planned Parenthood for ‘screening’ even though there isn’t a breast screening maching in any PP office in this country. Defacto abortion funding.
We recently heard where the sister of Komen, forget her name and the CEO or CFO or someone ‘stepped down’ but remained with the organization...no mention of what that is. Maybe in how to hide the fact they sponsor one of the biggest scams in this country. $90 entry fee, some $222-2500 pledge goal (according to my daughter) for each entrant. Three days of emotion and the money goes for what?
I searched their site a couple of months ago looking for signs of positive action....MARKETING! OUTREACH (what is that?)....not a word I saw about research or anything like that a rational person would think as a commendable accomplishment.....
These are just my opinions but I can tell you my daughter is much sharper than me, and she said she has better things to do with her money....like pay for a real mammogram, etc.
>> it is increasingly difficult to access thanks to the... pro-life laws that help women by giving them additional information and alternatives.
That says it all about the pro-abortion lobby’s version of “women’s health” doesn’t it? Education and information prevents abortions. To them, that’s a bad thing.
>>If they are losing why isnt a single major political party anti-abortion, and why will being pro-life a toxic position to hold nationwide?
Because America is about the people and not the politicians and parties. Americans are waking up to the reality of abortion, mostly thanks to leftist success at making more and more extreme.
The Obama administration can’t stand by and allow abortions to be more difficult to obtain. Pre-election they began by mandating coverage of abortion-causing pills even when that was a violation of someone’s conscience. The logical next step is to use the power of the federal government to try to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions, even when it violates their moral principles, so that women who want one don’t have to travel far to get one. Their mantra will be “safe, legal, and frequent.”
How about a dead and dismembered baby? Too much truth?
Because elections are won on the margins.
Perhaps about 20% of the electorate would vote for an explicitly pro-life candidate, based on that reason. About 30% of the population would vote against that candidate explicitly for that reason.
From the Emily Buchanan article ....
From its early beginnings, feminism was a young womens movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women the original feminists understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion child murder. Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.
I disagree with the title... and I’d bet that the tens of millions of aborted souls might as well.
According to Life Dynamics, it is estimated that some Soviet women underwent as many as 28 abortions in her lifetime.
The US pro-death crowd is responsible for the execution of 50 million babies since Roe.
Without the pro-life effort we would be standing on the graves of 150 million or more.
Rick Snyder signed a bill just last week that will likely close at least some abortion clinics. The law now requires that clinics performing abortions need to be licensed to do so and they must have an actual doctor physically on site.
It ain’t perfect but it will drain considerable money out of the murder business. A friend who once worked in one of those places explained that many offer the “service” but perform few abortions and act more as a means of collecting federal funds. Having to hire a couple of doctors will more than drain those funds removing the cost effectiveness of keeping them open.
The most toxicity has been seen in the issue of rape. There will likely never be a large enough portion of voters supporting forced birth upon rape victims.
At Planned Parenthood, the monitor faces away from the woman for two reasons. If there is a baby, they don't want the woman to see it. If there isn't a baby, they will perform a phoney abortion, to collect their fee.
What about the aborted babies? Don't they have the right to life?
Your argument also ignores the additional trauma of abortion, on top of rape. The baby is the one good thing that results from rape.
Millions of dead babies are not so sure the abortionists are losing.