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. SLCMLC says:

    I’ve replied to you in other posts, just one last thing: “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.” I don’t think this is the case at all. I see and respect your point of view. At no point have I used the term “unfair” or mocked your side or said I even necessarily disagree with it.

    One commenter (Maggie) wrote she has no idea how anyone can basically be pro-choice. Considering half the country is and according to one poll in another article 44% are against a ban even after 20 weeks, I was just trying to show a point of view that tens of millions of Americans can support.

    1. Joe M says:

      “I don’t think this is the case at all. I see and respect your point of view. At no point have I used the term “unfair” or mocked your side or said I even necessarily disagree with it.”

      You wrote:

      “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.”

      It is not a fact that anyone needs to recognize that outlawing abortion violates any fundamental rights. But, you wrote it as something people should recognize.

      “One commenter (Maggie) wrote she has no idea how anyone can basically be pro-choice.”

      She wasn’t questioning whether or not pro-choice people exist. She was questioning how people can be so cold-hearted.

  2. JAG says:

    The “Fools Errand” is calling the chosen (“choice”) abortion of a 20+ fetus a Medical Decision”. No one advocates that to protect the life of the mother (or perhaps a twin fetus) that abortion should be illegal at ANY stage of development. The medical decision regarding which LIFE to SAVE (after 20+ weeks of fetal development a life had better be at risk to justify killing a baby) will always be legal and remain between the patient and their doctor.

    1. SLCMLC says:

      The problem is that it’s often not a clear cut “pick one or the other argument” and there are added complexities over who’s medical opinion is “final” in these cases. Here’s an article from this very site that basically said a woman should be forced to give birth to a brain dead baby even if some doctors advised against it:

      https://www.catholicvote.org/el-salvador-supreme-court-respects-constitution-life/

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.