Tomi Lahren styles herself a “young, conservative woman”—and her sharp rise as a TV show host, she says, is an indication that there is an audience hungry for her message, which she’s described in the past as “anti-feminist.” Her show Tomi on The Blaze is wildly popular, mainly for her consistent defences of Donald Trump, and her young audience loves her for her willingness to face off with left-wing commentators like Trevor Noah of the Daily Show.
The last time cabinet minister Maryam Monsef made the news, the occasion was her bungled handling of the Liberals’ short-lived plan to enact electoral reform. Now, Monsef has appeared in headlines across the country saying that denying someone access to the violence of abortion is itself violence. From Maclean’s:
Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef says denying access to the full range of reproductive services — including abortion — is a form of violence against women.
“Reproductive health rights in Canada and around the world are critical to advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls,” Monsef said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.
It is common knowledge in the pro-life movement that the “pro-choice” media is, for the most part, “pro-abortion.” This is not an attempt to demonize their motives, but simply the only rational conclusion that observation can produce. Consistently, the media and their abortion industry allies portray legislation that would give women more information—informed consent, information concerning the baby’s development in the womb, ultrasounds—as “anti-choice,” when in in fact these policies simply allow women to make their irreversible, permanent decision with more facts. That those facts often prove persuasive in swaying women to choose for life is evidence that providing them with these facts is not only useful, but should be, if “pro-choice” meant anything at all, imperative.
Time and again, people tell pro-life activists that they dislike abortion victim photography because it is “graphic” and “disturbing,” and time and again, we respond that yes, it is—but that the real reason people want to cover up the reality of what is happening to pre-born children every day is that it makes them feel uncomfortable, and it makes them feel guilty. This is why pro-“choice” activists respond violently to all types of pro-life outreach, from sidewalk chalking to signs that simply read “Adoption: The Loving Option.” A culture that kills its children does not like to be reminded of this fact in any fashion.
As a rule, I’m happy when the folks over at Cosmopolitan are unhappy. And their post-Trump election headline was a pretty lovely one: “The Impact of this Election on Abortion Access will be Devastating.” The column was written by Robin Marty, who I’ve tangled with a few times on Twitter and is, in all fairness, one of the more reasonable members of the abortion cartel. But with the defeat of Hillary Clinton—a defeat that cost Planned Parenthood well over thirty million dollars in one swoop—Marty is not feeling very well:
Abortion has surfaced pretty regularly in the news these days. The World Health Organization, for example, reported good news and bad news. The good news: “A recent study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) shows that the rate of abortion in the developed world dropped by 19 points, from 46 to 27 for every 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44.” The bad news: “The data collected compared findings between 1990 to 1994 and 2010 to 2014, and showed that the rate of abortion in the developing world…had not dropped significantly.” A staggering 56 million abortions take place worldwide per year, around 88% of those in the developing world. Many of those abortions are funded by the “foreign aid” of the Obama Administration, and Justin Trudeau’s government has promised to begin funding abortions overseas imminently as well.
Dishonesty is an almost universal characteristic of abortion activists. Language like “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” “clump of cells,” and a mob of other intentionally ambiguous terms conceal what the fundamental question of the abortion debate actually is: Should older human beings have the right to kill younger human beings? As George Orwell once noted, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” And wind they have much of—the huffing and puffing of hot air that emits from the abortion crowd every time someone suggests the child in the womb may be of some value is enough to knock down many weak-kneed opponents.
When I was seven years old, I slipped into my sister’s room and carefully pulled down from her shelf her brand new series of books: Anne of Green Gables. I took the first book and, quiet like a mouse, returned with it to my bedroom. Crisp, clean pages greeted me, filled with words telling the story of the lonely orphan girl that won the hearts of everyone around her through her vivid imagination and vivacious spunk. But it wasn’t just any story. The words pulled me in, and over the next few hours, I too, fell in love with the red-headed orphan girl from Canada: Anne with an “e.”
Sick of hearing bad news all the time? Well, then enjoy what the abortion activists over at Slate.com consider to be bad news: The pro-life movement was so successful in 2015 that their silver lining is a desperate hope that the pro-life movement has made so much progress, Americans will now start to turn against them.
“Are we there yet?” Impatiently our kids peer through the van windows. It's already getting dark, and strings of multi-colored lights try to cheer up the cold streets of downtown Hamilton. The two boys in the back, however, are looking for only one thing: Jackson Square. They recognize the name of the place where our team “talks to people,” where a baby was saved from abortion last year. But tonight, our family’s on a different mission.
A couple of weeks ago the boys complained about being bored so we sat around the table to make a list of things to do during the Christmas break. Swimming! Bowling! Sledding! How about board games? “What if,” my husband Nick and I suggested, “we come up with one special thing for ourselves and one special thing for others?” Our sons agreed.