Skip to comments.Free abortions offered to women affected by Hurricane Harvey
Posted on 09/16/2017 8:13:53 AM PDT by huldah1776
Whole Womans Health, a reproductive health care organization, in collaboration with other groups, is offering free abortions to women affected by Hurricane Harvey.
At least 74 women have already taken the organization up on the offer, or have scheduled an appointment for the procedure, the Dallas Morning News reported. The price will be fully covered, as will the cost of transportation and accommodations, the group said.
But Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, argued against the notion of a free abortion, claiming that "there is always a cost.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Murderers only know murdering.
Absolutely unbelievable. Chances are the taxpayers will pick up these ‘free’ murders. Doesn’t matter anyway, they’ll make it up on selling the body parts.
This country is so far down the rabbit hole...
hmmmm, ... I wonder how many Boy babies, 9 months from now, will get either the first or the middle name of “HARVEY”?
Here’s some sick and evil stuff for your ping list.
Oh how sweet of them.
I support free abortions to all Democrats.
I still can’t believe I even read that...
Why? A natural disaster sparks a sudden need for an abortion? This really makes no sense.
Sure, taking care of a newborn is challenging enough under the best of circumstances...but I seriously doubt that most expectant women will do away with their child just because times are tough.
This is a sick program.
I usually can barely make thru trying to understand the headline. That shit is not civilized in the least.
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are pumping their fists in the air. YESSS!
Abortion for all, and we’ll make the taxpayer pay for it!
Death to babies; sanctuary for ‘dreamers’. Ya gotta love the liberal mind!
They should give out bumper stickers,too.
I killed my baby..and it was free!
These murdered babies should be added to the official death counts.
In most instances, Harvey brought out the best in people; the abortion industry needs to change that back around to their agenda.
Jesus, come quickly!
Ladies, you escaped the hurricane with nothing but your lives, so we would be pleased to take the life of your child for free. P.S. child must be between ages of conception to one minute before birth. You come in, we will kill it for free (as long as you sign consent so we can sell its parts.) P,P,S, if your child is past our age limit we can sell you the names of other hit men willing to get around these foolish government and religious restrictions.
Don’t forget about all those seniors “put away” in nursing homes and forgotten by the millennials. Many of them were drowned or died from serious conditions brought on by Irma. The evacuation plan didn’t consider them at all.
I thought we learned something from Katrina. A large nursing home in NOLA had a large fatality rate during Katrina because of no evacuation plan for nursing home patients.
"Hillary Clinton responded to a question about the controversy over potential pro-life Democratic candidates in a new interview by insisting that abortion is a 'fundamental human right.'
That such a declaration comes from the mouth of a person who sought the Presidency of the United States of America is surreal and unbelievable, given that it deeply offends such a large portion of the citizenry.
Just who does this person believe she is? We know that she is committed to that movement which self-identifies as "Progressive," further, we know that movement's economic ideas are Socialist by nature.
Perhaps the following excerpt may explain why the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton insist on "population control." Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.Most present-day Americans do not understand the explanation of the Progressive ideology, as explained so clearly in Robertson's essay.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON