Thank Heaven for Little Girls? Not.

YouTube Preview Image

“Thank heaven for leetle girls. They grow up in the most delightful way…”

Or maybe not.

Two pieces of information came out today which make for a sickening, irrational and frightening clash. On the one hand a quote from the President speaking in Illinois about his “healthcare” plan:

We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood or taking away affordable birth control. We don’t need that. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same economic opportunities as my sons. We’re not turning back the clock. We’re not going back there.

Right. Echoes of “I would not want to punish my daughters with a child.” There’s no real debate. No dialogue. No listening. It’s simply what the President wants, and what he wants he will have.

Then he frames the debate in sentimental terms. This is all about empowering little girls. His little girls. It’s all about giving little girls “economic opportunities” It’s all very dreamy and sweet. Here’s the video version:

YouTube Preview Image

Uh huh. But what little girls? I guess only the ones who survive gendercide in America.

Here’s another video which offers truth where the first offers whitewashed sentimentality.

YouTube Preview Image

Are any of the pro aborts thinking this through at all? They’re so convinced of the idea that abortion empowers women that they are blind to the rising tide of gendercide–abortion being used to eliminate little girls completely.

They’re like the contraception and sex ed providers who, when confronted with the statistics of never ending rise of teen pregnancies say, “I guess they need even more sex education and condoms at an even earlier age…”

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

About Fr. Dwight Longenecker
  • Kevin

    If the government subsidized McDonald’s to go into schools across the nation to teach kids about the health benefits of eating burgers and fries, everyone would see the insanity and glaring conflict of interest. But paying the nation’s largest abortion provider to teach sex “education”? Move along, citizens; there is nothing to see here…

  • flyingvic

    I’m struggling to see any kind of logical link in the second clip between rejoicing at girls’ ambitions and allowing abortion on demand. Can anyone enlighten me, please?

  • Al Bergstrazer

    From demagogues to demimondes. The arrogance and pretentions of our President seem to have no bounds; “We don’t need another fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood.’ Translation; ‘I don’t WANT another fight over abortion or over getting rid of a front organization for many of my political fellow travelers getting in the way of my plans; what I want to do is get on with garnering power and debauching the human capitol of the United States without interruption. ‘ What a shift we have in this one man, abortion is no longer even soft-pedaled as a regretable necessity in some cases but rather linked to ‘health choices’ and ‘economic opportunities.’ So the re-framing of the argument is that if you oppose abortion you want women to be unhealthy and poor? Sophistry! Planned Parenthood is coming to schools to teach sex ed? And while you’re at it, get RJR Reynolds to teach how to light and put out cigarettes safely, and Annheiser-Busch will give a seminar on how to properly tap a keg-no we have laws against that, don’t we?

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Vic–perhaps you should watch the pro Obama clip again. It’s not really about rejoicing in little girls’ ambitions. It’s about contraception and abortion. Listen to the mother speaking about contraception and “a woman’s right to make her own health decisions”–that’s code for “pro choice” abortion on demand.

    The Obama White House is framing the entire abortion debate in a new way. By linking abortion and contraception and women’s rights (ie. little girls ambitions) they hope to silence the abortion debate completely. Abortion is, for them, simply an extension of a woman’s right to “total reproductive freedom”. See–the little girls in the video can only achieve their goals if they are allowed to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

    I linked this video with evidence of gender selective abortions going on not only in China and India but here and in the UK. Who is eliminated through gendercide? Little girls. The irony is amazingly cruel.

  • akaVarmint

    What he is saying is the exact opposite of what is “the best for women”. It is actually the worst thing for women. Not to mention that the IARC (WHO and UN) lists hormonal contraception as a group one carcinogenic. This means there is significant evidence that it causes cancer. Yet, our beloved *eye roll* President wants to hand it out like candy. Its sick!

    On a side note – Planned Parenthood’s three main money makers is abortion, contraception and STD testing and treatment. If people don’t have promiscuous sex, they will go out of business. And since the don’t tell kids that condoms do not protect against STD’s – condoms only reduce the risks (to “a lesser degree” for HPV) – it just doubles how much money they can make. Why anyone thinks they are a good choice to provide sex education and provide better women’s health is beyond my understanding.

  • flyingvic

    Father, I see quite clearly what the clip is all about – I just wonder at how the viewer is meant to swallow what seems to me to be a huge non sequitur in the middle of it.

    • Dwight Longenecker

      I see. I thought you didn’t understand what the clip was proposing. They’re saying if those little girls can’t have contraception and abortion on demand they will be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

  • JamesR

    I am a new reader and almost always exclusively a “lurker” rather than participant due to time constraints. I stumbled onto your site from the Anchoress. I really love your site. I was raised as an Episcopalian, and joined the Catholic Church in my 40′s (a couple of decades being married to a “cradle” Catholic wore me down :) ), with a Mom who is a Mennonnite. Having just said how much I love your site, forgive me for now taking a “shot” at you – not you personally, but what I view as the overall leadership of the Catholic Church:
    As a slightly right of center pro-lifer, it has been a source of annoyance to me — oh, around every four years or so, at how the Church (at least MY impression of it) seems to crawl under a rock, and goes silent on the critical sanctity of life issue. The ONLY prayer of ever making any inroads on Roe v. Wade, in terms of the US SC upholding state laws placing restrictions on abortions, is by having Republican presidents appointing the federal judiciary, and not Democrats. From what I can gather, a fondness for socialistic government programs for the poor, end up trumping or at least neutralizing the Sanctity of Life concerns come election time. As a result, you end up with the bizarre situation of having the most pro-abortion president of our lifetimes, who will NEVER accept, e.g., any cuts in funding for Planned Parenthood — the local branch of which our own clergy holds prayer vigils outside of — being invited as an honored speaker at Notre Dame!! An event I found to be outrageous and offensive.
    So color me a tad cynical when the Church had its melt-down over the Obamacare intrustion into religious freedom. Heck, our local Diocese newspaper could not even at first bring itself to place the blame squarely where this belongs — and say the President’s name! It was that awful HHS! (eyes roll).
    The issue of abortion hasn’t from my perch, ever truly spurred the Church leadership into stepping up and advising its flock to take a stand — Obama got 53% of the Catholic vote in 2008. So I hope and pray that concern over the Obamacare mess will finally wake up the church leadership, and that there will be voices raised who will stand up and clearly imply to their flocks if not speaking it outright: “This man MUST be voted out of office – there is no other alternative.” For if that happens, and if the Catholic vote as a result swings from 53-47% in Obama’s favor to 37-63% — then the Catholics of America will have been instrumental in removing him from office – and the vote split from other demographics won’t even matter.

    And then the pro-Life movement will at least be an incidental beneficiary if not a direct and intentional beneficiary of the Church’s stepping up to the plate on the health care issue. If the Church voices do not speak up and make it plain that the political direction the pro-abortion party wishes to take this country is unacceptable, and Mr. Obama wins a second term — the Church has nobody to blame but itself.

    • mark

      Triple “Amen” to your concern for the actual saltiness of the church today. I do however find a little solace in catholic radio- AM 1300 here in Greenville.they have long been shedding the light on the world-class Obscurantist in Chief . In addition I was heartened by the response of the head Father at St. Mary’s who prescribed for his parishoners who had lemming-like voted for the Elegant One an especial penance.

  • BHG

    I wonder why anyone is surprised at sex-selective abortion–and why it is any worse than other abortions? I suppose it is in an effort to wake up the pro-abortion feminists but really–does the sex of the aborted child really matter?

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      I think it is more shocking because there are still many people who consider abortion to be a terrible last resort–a shameful and bad choice, but a choice which sometimes has to be made. The fact that women are now having multiple abortions and using it for gender selection makes the evil even worse.

      • BHG

        I see your point. I wonder whether there would be an outrage if the sex being selected against were male–and whetherif the proposed ban in the USHR passes, there will be any effort to determine whether sex selection is occuring. It will just ensure silence and deception. I believe, like the writer below, that only a ban on determining the sex of a child before birth will affect sex-selective abortion as long as abortion remains legal. And that will run into problems because there are genetic disorders that are male predominant (like hemophilia) and there will be an outcry at restricting the use of ultrasound and amniocentesis, not to mention an outcry at infringing on the right to privacy…I am glad folks are waking up to the terrible reality of abortion but it is no less terrible when done “as a last resort.” THe only way to prevent sex-selective abortion is to prevent abortion. Period.

        • Kristen inDallas

          or we could stop allowing late-term abortions…. You can prevent sex selection by making sure every one who’s going to get one does so in the first 3 months.

        • Al Bergstrazer

          What if the selection were based on genetic traits that would reflect a persons behavioral tendencies? Many homosexuals say that they are born with their desire, what if it were found to be a genetic trait? Would the left then be for abortion and no parental consent if the mother did not want her child to grow up gay? No, of course not. The bizarre reasoning is that if you oppose a national healthcare program you are therfore against women and their reproductive rights, but if you are for abortion on demand which involves the death of unborn females, you’re considered a champion of women.

    • Kristen inDallas

      It winds up being a big deal in places like China and India, where the differences between male and female population numbers are so stagerring that prostitution and sex trafficing become common place.

  • NancyP

    Gendercide (abortion based on the sex of the unborn child) is so prevalent in other parts of the world that some countries (e.g. South Korea) have officially prohibited doctors and ultrasound technicians from telling parents the sex of their unborn baby, because they know that if that unborn child is a girl, she will almost always be murdered through abortion. We just cannot allow gendercide to continue in the USA. (And, once gendercide is outlawed, we must not give up and we must fight to end all abortion!)

    • Micaela

      I live in South Korea. As far as I know, there is no such law against telling the gender of a child. I can’t say with absolute certainty, but I do know several women (all American) who have had babies here and all of them found out the gender during pregnancy. And I have heard a sickening tale of a woman (friend of a friend of a friend) who has had FOUR abortions of baby girls. So I’m guessing, if it is a law, it is not closely followed. So, so sad.

      • Micaela

        Replying to correct myself. :) I did a little more research and asked around. Apparently women in Korea are not supposed to be able to find out the gender of their child before the 24th week, since that is the last point a woman can get an abortion here. There is some doubt as to how often it is enforced, though. Sorry for my misrepresentation.

  • Bob M

    Gendercide – the real “War on Women”. Feminists and pro-choice proponents should feel more empowered and liberated now, because they have more of a “choice” than they did before. They can now choose which gender of “tissue” to let survive until birth and which gender of “tissue” to terminate.
    If choice is good, more choice is better – right?

    Fast forward to 2035 – no more waiting in line at the ladies room.

  • Jane Hartman

    Are these folks that exposed the gendercide “Liars for Jesus?”

    • anton

      No, these folks fight fire with fire. Lies turned against the prince of lies to expose him and his evil!