The Abortionistas: Making Celebrities Instead of Arguments

In its unrelenting effort to promote abortion, the mainstream media anointed its latest abortion celebrity. Texas State Senator Wendy Davis is the latest in a long line of media darlings, along with Sandra Fluke, christened for celebrity sainthood for their opposition to anti abortion laws.

Wendy-Davis

The 3 major Sunday talk shows prominently featured Wendy, the “Harvard educated lawyer mom of 2” who filibustered for 12 hours abill which would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.  The legislation requires doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It limits abortions to surgical   centers and stipulates that doctors must monitor even non-surgical abortions.    The media’s new Wendy Darling waltzed through the talk shows, unscathed and unchallenged as the new star on the D.C. circuit and christened the next rising Democratic star in Texas.

What is the media’s purpose for creating celebrities?

  • Putting a pretty face on abortion
  • Distracting the public attention from the issues
  • Shutting down debate on the issues
  • Drown out dissent
  • Providing the administration with a celebrity and fresh face to promote its agenda
  • Disguise the media’s bias as pro abortion
  • Feeds into the public’s hero worship of celebrities

Instead of talking about the reality of abortion, or the terms of the pending bill, or the brutality of Kermit Gosnell, the media talks about Davis’ cool pink gym shoes that she wore during the filibuster. The superficial is now the order of the day. The celebrity drenched culture plays out in politics and in Washington D.C. Is there a media anointed celebrity who is pro life? Don’t bother looking for one.

It’s all orchestrated, planned and choreographed

Make no mistake about it, Wendy Davis’ debut on the national stage was carefully and strategically orchestrated by the Democratic party and its right arm, Planned Parenthood. After the Gosnell debacle, the abortion advocates were desperately searching for a pretty new face to push the abortion agenda. They found her deep in the heart of Texas.

The star struck media virtually unchallenged her assertion that women would die if this bill passed the Texas Senate. What is this so called bill which is a death knell for women? The proposal would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, and require doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, limit abortions to surgical centers and stipulate doctors must monitor even non-surgical abortions. Sounds like Texas learned some important lessons from Philadelphia. It sure appears that women’s reproductive health will be protected in the lone star state, unless you prefer unregulated late term abortion clinics like Kermit Gosnell’s.

The Benefits of the Abortion Pin up Poster

Just ask Sandra Fluke about the adulation, star power, and rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty.  You might recall that Sandra skyrocketed to media prominence in a carefully orchestrated House appearance on the importance of requiring insurance plans to cover birth control during a debate on whether insurance should have a contraception mandate. Ms. Fluke was the ideal poster girl, law student at Georgetown, a Catholic university. She, too, skated through the Sunday talk shows as the hosts threw her soft ball questions.

Having kept up her end of the bargain, the benefits to Ms. Fluke started rolling in. She appeared on many of the daytime time shows. Surprise, surprise, Fluke supported Obama’s re-election campaign. In gratitude for her efforts, she introduced Obama at a Denver rally and best of all, Sandra Fluke, Georgetown law student was a featured speaker at the 2012 Democratic National Convention!

The Democrats are great at manufacturing celebrities, but not jobs.

But perhaps, those pink gym shoes will come in handy for all the baby girls born in Texas when the bill passes.

23 thoughts on “The Abortionistas: Making Celebrities Instead of Arguments

  1. Paul B says:

    Why doesn’t anyone ask this “mother of 2″ why she chose to give birth? After all, Roe v Wade was in place before she became a mother. The answer is that there is no response that she could give that would justify her decision. If she were to say “I love my children” wouldn’t that infer that to have killed them through abortion means the opposite?

    1. SLCMLC says:

      Huh? People who are pro-choice aren’t allowed to have kids of their own? Is this serious logic? I think even the most passionate pro-life people would find your argument ridiculous.

      1. Joe M says:

        SLCMLC.

        That’s a straw man argument. Paul did not argue that Davis should not be allowed to have kids.

        He argued that her assumed feelings about her kids creates a contradiction to her pro-abortion position.

        1. SLCMLC says:

          Eh, it’s not a strawman, I’m referring to Paul’s point. I meant to say that while he obviously respects her legal right to have kids, he seems to think that there’s a moral disconnect between being pro-choice and deciding to have children. I just don’t see that disconnect at all and would think most pro-lifers would admit that as well.

          Also, Wendy Davis (who I don’t really know or care about) is not “pro-abortion”. She’s not. She’s pro-choice. I made this point to you in an earlier post, there’s just a huge difference in my mind. Maybe you can’t see it.

          1. Joe M says:

            SLCMLC.

            Lets be honest. That doesn’t resemble what your comment was at all. You misconstrued Paul’s statement and insulted him over it.

            As for your new argument, the moral disconnect is easy to see. Being “pro-choice” means that you believe that what makes an individual unique is of optional importance to you. That is in contradiction to loving children as unique human beings.

            “Pro-Choice” is not an accurate label because it removes the choice of the life being killed. Disliking abortion does not make a person any less pro-abortion when they support legalized abortion.

            Again, lets be honest. Whether you get an abortion or not, supporting legalized abortion results in more abortions. Thus, fighting for legalized abortion is clearly pro-abortion.

          2. SLCMLC says:

            I’ll be honest, I should have said “People who are pro-choice aren’t morally justified to have kids of their own?” I didn’t misconstrue what Paul said at all, I find it shocking that he implied that having kids and being pro-choice are somehow contradictory. I wasn’t trying to insult him, I really just don’t see his logic at all.

          3. Joe M says:

            “I’ll be honest, I should have said “People who are pro-choice aren’t morally justified to have kids of their own?””

            That isn’t an improvement. That doesn’t resemble what Paul wrote at all. It’s another straw man argument.

          4. SLCMLC says:

            We’ll have to agree to disagree. I found Paul’s comment to be very offensive to anyone who considers themselves pro-choice and also has children of their own. And I actually bet many pro-life people would agree and think his comment has no place in the debate.

  2. Larry says:

    Great fiction.

  3. SLCMLC says:

    Liberals didn’t make Sandra Fluke a hero, Rush Limbaugh did with his ridiculous attack on her. And I don’t think Fluke had anything to do with abortion, did she? I thought she was about contraception. You know, contraception that just MIGHT help reduce the number of abortions in this country (admittedly, another controversial topic).

    This article actually brings up a very good point that the media (and by extension, we the consumers of it) fails at its job in many cases. How this somehow turns into an attack on Democrats not being able to create jobs is beyond me though.

    1. Joe M says:

      Fluke was being given the celebrity treatment before Limbaugh became part of the story.

  4. Kelly B says:

    Thank you for contrasting Davis with Gosnell. How about we go one step further: Every time an article includes a photo of Davis, let’s also show a pic of Kermit Gosnell to make clear what abortion in America actually means.

  5. teej says:

    we live in a world of celebrity and it should not be shocking when one party or the other uses it to their advantage. But really, ever heard of Sarah Palin? Same thing different party. It is unfortunate that both parties will use that to their advantage

    1. Joe M says:

      Sarah Palin was asked tough questions and defended her positions with arguments.

      I don’t see that occurring with Davis.

  6. Maggie says:

    I am trying so hard to understand these women, but I am failing. My first instinct is to save a life ,any life, even if I am irritated or frightened by that life. I am desperately afraid of snakes and have run and asked that they be captured and taken away from my proximity to an area that snakes thrive in. Just away from me.
    Most of the women I know feel the same . What happens to these women that life has no meaning to them?

    1. SLCMLC says:

      I understand your view Maggie, let me try to help. These women who are pro-choice do not enjoy seeing fetuses aborted. They are not pro-abortion. They do not enjoy death. They simply do not like the idea of the government dictating what they can do with their body.

      I realize this is a very controversial and divisive topic. I realize that many people on this site think life begins at conception and a fetus’s right to life trumps any rights the mother has. But some people (like half the country) feel differently. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. And the choice is that woman should control their bodies, not the government. Wendy Davis doesn’t want to abort 20 week old fetuses. She just doesn’t trust the government to make medical decisions for her.

      I’m not asking anyone to agree with pro-choicers, that would be a fool’s errand. I am simply trying to show their point of view. Too many times on this site people don’t seem to recognize that a full outlaw of abortion would be an enormous violation of a fundamental right women have to control their own body. I’m not say this violation isn’t justified or anything, but violating it is a big, big deal.

      1. Larry says:

        Very excellent points and well stated. Thank you

      2. Joe M says:

        SLCMLC.

        “These women who are pro-choice do not enjoy seeing fetuses aborted. They are not pro-abortion. They do not enjoy death. They simply do not like the idea of the government dictating what they can do with their body.”

        This argument does not make logical sense. If these women really do not like abortion, then they would choose not to have them and whether or not they are illegal would be a non-issue.

        These women, except in cases of rape, are in control over their bodies. The conception of a child is a direct result of decisions that they made. What you are talking about is women not taking responsibility for their own actions.

        Furthermore, the government dictates what people can do with their bodies in all kinds of ways. A woman will be punished for abandoning a born child. Do these women you speak of not like that idea either?

        “But some people (like half the country) feel differently. They are not pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. ”

        The majority of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester, as it is in most of Europe. Wendy Davis and these women you refer to do not represent where most of society is on this issue.

        “Too many times on this site people don’t seem to recognize that a full outlaw of abortion would be an enormous violation of a fundamental right women have to control their own body.”

        That’s because people are not obligated to share your opinion about this. You write about it as if disagreeing with your opinion is somehow unfair.

        In general, pro-life people believe that women do have control over their bodies and that killing a human being after deciding to conceive them is wrong. None of the reasons given by pro-choice advocates to justify killing a human being seem consistent with any of our other laws.

        Can parents kill their children to save money? Can they kill them to keep their careers on track? To avoid embarrassment?

        None of these shabby excuses justifies what you advocate an option for.

        1. Brian says:

          I wish there was a “Like” button, Joe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.