Thursday, May 21, 2009

So Why Can't We Vote?

In my daily emails, I get updates from Town Hall -a website of conservative writers and I always, always read Ann Coulter. I find the woman funny and bold. She writes things that others only dare to think, they would never voice.

Today, the headline is misleading. Notre Dame Holds First Alan Keyes Fund-Raiser - nothing about Alan Keyes in this piece, but plenty of punches that hit home.

She begins outrageously, by suggesting
How about for next year's graduation ceremony Notre Dame have an abortionist perform an abortion live on stage? They could have a partial-birth abortion for the advanced degrees.

The reason for this:
According to liberals, the right to kill babies was enshrined by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution -- and other constitutional rights are celebrated in public....instead of inviting a constitutional lawyer to yammer on about this purported constitutional right, why not show it being practiced?

She suggests George Tiller (aka Tiller the killer) to be the invited abortionist and Obama could be his assistant, given the tight relationship between Tiller and Obama's newly selected Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

This is a "constitutional right" like no other.
Even its supporters are embarrassed by the exercise of this right. They won't practice the right in public -- they won't even call abortion by its name, preferring to use a string of constantly changing euphemisms, such as "reproductive health" and "choice."

Since the ruling Roe v Wade was made law by Supreme Court in 1973, all Americans have had to live with the abortion law that allows almost every abortion for almost every reason throughout the entire pregnancy. Where is the democracy in that? Why, Ann asks, should the entire nation have to live by a law about which they had no say?

To Obama's question "How does each of us remain firm in our principles ... without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?", Ann answers "a good start would be letting us vote."

...abortion on demand is lyingly called a "constitutional right," immutable to the tiniest alteration by the voters.

I echo this sentiment: how about a vote indeed? in Canada as well as the US, put it to the electorate and let the democratic process take its course. Something that pro-abortion liberals would never do, given the fact that the latest Gallup poll shows the majority of Americans are pro-life.


The Comeau Family said...

They won't allow votes on things like this because they're scared stiff. They know the truth better than many of the women getting abortions. I just read (and you must know) that some states are seriously considering passing legislation that would require a woman to see her baby on ultrasound before getting an abortion. "No, don't allow that! Er, um, ah, because it's...uh...interference! Yeah, interference!" Really, this is what the pro-aborts actually said, that the government would be interfering. Interference? To show a woman something that is truly happening inside her at that very moment? They are scared to death. I always wondered: why are they afraid if they really believe that what they say is true? Someone whose convictions are grounded in truth is not afraid and does not waver. They know that what they're saying has absolutely nothing to do with the truth, so they are scared. Someday, they won't be able to lie about it anymore.

Julie said...

Elizabeth, Oklahoma just passed legislation banning sex-selection abortions. Wonder what feminists will do with that? they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Which only goes to show that their logic was faulty in the first place.