NOW Yowls at 'Violently Anti-Woman' Catholic Bishops
The National Organization for Women issued a statement from president Terry O'Neill Wednesday with a clearly anti-religion message. The headline: "U.S. Catholic Bishops Major Force Behind War on Women." It began:
The collusion of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has led to an open declaration of war on the women of this country. The bishops have long sought to enshrine into law those policies of the Catholic Church that subordinate women. And they don't care how badly women get hurt in the process.
In the last election, the bishops helped to elect legislators that would do their bidding, which includes enacting dangerous and discriminatory bills denying women safe, accessible and affordable abortion care and family planning, even encouraging hospitals to let women die in the name of 'life.'
NOW naturally hated any bill that restricted their sacrament of abortion. They're actively lobbying for the right to snuff out the unborn, but somehow their opponents are the violent ones. They really punched low on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3), which actually retains taxpayer funding of abortions for the exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother:
HR 3, also known as 'Stupak on Steroids,' would enshrine the Hyde Amendment into law and expand it to impose tax penalties on millions of families and businesses whose private insurance covers abortion care, thereby expanding the scope of Internal Revenue Service audits to the area between women's legs. In testifying in favor of this bill in committee, a representative from the Catholic bishops proudly supported revoking abortion rights even in cases of rape. You read that right -- and isn't that rich, coming from the very men who have consistently protected sexually abusive priests?
The O'Neill statement closed with more Bishops Kill Women rhetoric:
Not only are these assaults on women's rights at odds with generally accepted medical practice and flatly unethical, there is little doubt that they will kill women. [Emphasis theirs.]
The National Organization for Women is fighting back against these efforts in coalition with our allies and women's health advocates across the country. We also renew our demand that the federal government require the all-male and violently anti-woman U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops follow the same lobbying and disclosure requirements that currently apply to everyone else.
Would our media accept conservatives calling an Islamic group "violently anti-woman," or would they think that was a vicious stereotype? Why do the media fail to notice the hostility that feminists have toward America's largest church?
Earlier: NOW Blames Tucson Shooting on 'Extreme Right-Wing Opponents' of 'Progressive Solutions'
[Hat tip: Red Ceiling Man]
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
double standards for nags
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:06am.
The NAGs (National Assocation of Gals) sure have some mixed priorities. We have Muslim men in this country that treat their women(of all ages) like so much property and even honor-killing them and trying to invoke Sharia as a way of getting out of a murder charge, FAR worse than this thing about the catholics?? We just had a guy found guilty of beheading his wife who was supposed to be a producer of a TV station to show to the public how peaceful Islam is!!!
WTF ya buncha wacked out broads?? Given that there's around 2000,000 or so(maybe less), how the hell can you represent women in this country?? And that's not the only thing you wackos have weird priorities on.
-Jon
democrat boy toys
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:11am.
I thought NOW slunk back into the shadows like good little ladies after refusing to defend women from the likes of Bill Clinton, John Edwards and the Kennedy men. The old NOW ladies are like wives who remain silent when their husband abuses their daughter.
NOW is missing the boat
Submitted by octavioj on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:13am.
Some have reported that the presence of young women in Marches for Life across America was very large. So why defunding abortion is an attack against women if women are in favor of defunding?
NOW doesn't represent THIS woman!
Submitted by Crumpets on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 12:32am.
What about all those little tiny women that are aborted in this country every day? Well those don't really count because they can't vote. Someday people will look back on our dependence on abortion for birth control and compare it to the Holocaust. When we stop thinking of sex as an itch that needs to be scratched every time we want to instead of as a possible procreative act, we will finally be adults. The left says if you don't believe in abortion, don'thave one. How about if you don't want to have a baby, don't make one.
Neck and Neck.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 4:17am.
NOW members are making almost as much a fool of themselves as Chris Mathews is of himself.
Ladies, targetting any religion on the planet while ignoring what happens to females under Islam shows you to be as fake as the day is long.
NOW is a hateful gang of female bullies
Submitted by ThisnThat on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 8:23am.
I'm still waiting on NOW's outrage against muslim men stripping, beating, and gang-raping Laura Logan in Egypt. Here's what they incorrectly said about Rep Giffords: "Rep. Giffords Shooting is an Attack on All of Us: NOW Calls on Right Wing to Disavow Violence and Hate Speech". But the only way NOW would mention anything about Logan is if she became pregnant as a result of the gang-rape. NOW would then use that as a way of attacking "hateful right-wingers against abortion". She would become a cause célèbre at that point, thereby cementing their status as intolerant bitches.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
indeed
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 9:31am.
Yeah, you'd think they'd say something about Logan, but I'm actually a bit disappointed. Not surprised, just disappointed. Makes me wonder if there's a guy beholden to Muslims telling the NAGs not to say anything about certain subjects. Kinda like the man behind the curtain....or the skirt.
-Jon
I read Ms. O'Neill's
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 9:01am.
I read Ms. O'Neill's statement and this caught my eye:
In the last election, the bishops helped to elect legislators that would do their bidding, which includes enacting dangerous and discriminatory bills denying women safe, accessible and affordable abortion care and family planning......
Abortion care ????
Now THAT's an oxymoron!!
But I digress....
The bishops didn't support people they could push around; they supported people whose stand on life agreed with theirs. How DARE they do that!!
Look at John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, the late Ted Kennedy. They disagreed with the bishops and didn't "do their bidding." Likewise, these newly elected legislators aren't "do[ing] their bidding" but voting their consciences.
Stupidity
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 10:06am.
They elected someone to do their bidding! LOL!
That's right. The bishops were trying to install a Manchurian Candidate (or a pliant stooge) and only the NOW defenders of truth were able to discern the deception. Breathlessly telling us how they've uncovered the plot ...
Talk about trying to stir up emotions! And how lame an attempt it was!
When I started reading Tim's post, my immediate reaction was annoyance at their obvious religious hatred. By the end, frankly, I was consoled - - any organization this lame is hardly worth the worry.
Double think.
Submitted by LaVallette on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 6:55am.
So a collection of free people called "NOW" is to be lauded for campaigning to kill innocents but a collection of free citizens called the Catholic Church must not campaign to save them. Rights for me but not for thee unless you agree with me.