Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez conflate abortion with 'religious freedom'

The skyline of Manhattan wasn't lit up in pink (as far as I know), but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) celebrated the Senate's failure to pass two pro-life bills this week.

Neither the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act nor the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act received the 60 votes necessary to be advanced.

The former would have mandated that babies surviving failed abortion attempts receive the "same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn," while the latter would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks, as that is the age at which most specialists believe the unborn child can feel pain.  The bill contained exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother.

Gillibrand, speaking of the bills, told MSNBC: "This is part of President Trump and Mitch McConnell's all-out assault on women.  They're trying to harm women.  They're trying to take away their civil rights, their human rights, their ability to make the most important, intimate decisions of their lives.  They're taking away their religious freedom.  They're taking away their moral freedom."

No, Sen. Gillibrand, they are not aborting women, nor harming them in any way.  They are trying to stem your party's all-out assault on babies.  I think deep down you know this, and that's why you try so hard — if pathetically — to refute it.  They are not taking away women's civil rights.  You are not being enslaved or segregated.  That is an insult to those who were.  They are protecting the human rights of as yet unborn children.  Many crimes are "intimate."  Is the fact that rape isn't legal taking away men's ability to make the "most important, intimate decisions of their lives"?  Is it taking away their "moral freedom"?  You literally can't be any more wrong, misguided, and hypocritical than this.  Sen. Gillibrand, words are like genders: try as you might, you can't simply make them mean whatever you want them to.

Sadly, Gillibrand wasn't done.  She added, "These two measures that we're voting on literally change the landscape of how we treat a baby who was born[.]"  Yes, by allowing them to live.  She noted that "parents want to be able to have those final moments with their child."  Indeed.  Instead of seeing them grow up.  She finished by stating, "It is a horrible, horrible choice by Mitch McConnell to force these votes and we've voted on these measures before and they've lost.  I think this is just a political ploy to satisfy those who are attending the CPAC conference."  No, Sen. Gillibrand, the "horrible, horrible" choices were made by the parents, and your support for abortion is, in part, a political ploy to satisfy those women who don't wish to be burdened by the consequences of their decision to be "intimate." 

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently berated her fellow Congress members during a House oversight hearing on religious freedom.  Upset that those less "woke" than herself don't sufficiently share her radically "progressive" beliefs about medical care; abortion; LGBT issues; and, well, pretty much everything else, the well known biblical scholar lashed out.  She said, "Sometimes, especially this body, I feel as though if Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, fight for the least of us...he would be maligned as a radical and rejected from these doors."  In high dudgeon now, she added that she was "tired of communities of faith being weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination.  I'm tired of it." 

Yes, Sen. Gillibrand and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, I'm sure if Jesus were among us today, He would be performing abortions Himself.  I mean, who could be more pro-abortion than the Son of God, right?  What was that about "fighting for the least of us"?

Incredible.  If we don't wake up soon, it will be too late.  It is not "climate change" we have to worry about (the dumbest phrase in recorded history), but our diminishing ability to separate good from evil, effective policies from disastrous ones, and truth from b-------.  Neither tolerance nor intolerance is a virtue.  Neither is always good or always bad.  We have become preposterously tolerant of everything from inanity to evil, and increasingly intolerant of standards, decency, and traditional morality. 

Image credit: Phil Roeder via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA 2.0.

The skyline of Manhattan wasn't lit up in pink (as far as I know), but Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) celebrated the Senate's failure to pass two pro-life bills this week.

Neither the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act nor the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act received the 60 votes necessary to be advanced.

The former would have mandated that babies surviving failed abortion attempts receive the "same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn," while the latter would have banned most abortions after 20 weeks, as that is the age at which most specialists believe the unborn child can feel pain.  The bill contained exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother.

Gillibrand, speaking of the bills, told MSNBC: "This is part of President Trump and Mitch McConnell's all-out assault on women.  They're trying to harm women.  They're trying to take away their civil rights, their human rights, their ability to make the most important, intimate decisions of their lives.  They're taking away their religious freedom.  They're taking away their moral freedom."

No, Sen. Gillibrand, they are not aborting women, nor harming them in any way.  They are trying to stem your party's all-out assault on babies.  I think deep down you know this, and that's why you try so hard — if pathetically — to refute it.  They are not taking away women's civil rights.  You are not being enslaved or segregated.  That is an insult to those who were.  They are protecting the human rights of as yet unborn children.  Many crimes are "intimate."  Is the fact that rape isn't legal taking away men's ability to make the "most important, intimate decisions of their lives"?  Is it taking away their "moral freedom"?  You literally can't be any more wrong, misguided, and hypocritical than this.  Sen. Gillibrand, words are like genders: try as you might, you can't simply make them mean whatever you want them to.

Sadly, Gillibrand wasn't done.  She added, "These two measures that we're voting on literally change the landscape of how we treat a baby who was born[.]"  Yes, by allowing them to live.  She noted that "parents want to be able to have those final moments with their child."  Indeed.  Instead of seeing them grow up.  She finished by stating, "It is a horrible, horrible choice by Mitch McConnell to force these votes and we've voted on these measures before and they've lost.  I think this is just a political ploy to satisfy those who are attending the CPAC conference."  No, Sen. Gillibrand, the "horrible, horrible" choices were made by the parents, and your support for abortion is, in part, a political ploy to satisfy those women who don't wish to be burdened by the consequences of their decision to be "intimate." 

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently berated her fellow Congress members during a House oversight hearing on religious freedom.  Upset that those less "woke" than herself don't sufficiently share her radically "progressive" beliefs about medical care; abortion; LGBT issues; and, well, pretty much everything else, the well known biblical scholar lashed out.  She said, "Sometimes, especially this body, I feel as though if Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said thousands of years ago, that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, fight for the least of us...he would be maligned as a radical and rejected from these doors."  In high dudgeon now, she added that she was "tired of communities of faith being weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination.  I'm tired of it." 

Yes, Sen. Gillibrand and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, I'm sure if Jesus were among us today, He would be performing abortions Himself.  I mean, who could be more pro-abortion than the Son of God, right?  What was that about "fighting for the least of us"?

Incredible.  If we don't wake up soon, it will be too late.  It is not "climate change" we have to worry about (the dumbest phrase in recorded history), but our diminishing ability to separate good from evil, effective policies from disastrous ones, and truth from b-------.  Neither tolerance nor intolerance is a virtue.  Neither is always good or always bad.  We have become preposterously tolerant of everything from inanity to evil, and increasingly intolerant of standards, decency, and traditional morality. 

Image credit: Phil Roeder via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA 2.0.