Once again, a columnist at HuffPo proclaims that conservative women are not real women because none of the women she knows are…pro-life.

In Sarah Palin’s recent video, she talks about “a lot of women coming together to get things done for our country.” I also know a lot of women coming together and enacting change — but I don’t think we’re talking about the same group of women.

The women I know — Republicans, Democrats, and Green Party members — are fighters for women’s equality and defenders of reproductive health choices. They’re diverse, like our country. They believe in giving women freedom to make decisions about themselves and their family. They trust women.

Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women. Now, if Ms. Bennett managed to know every. single. woman. in. the. world., her argument may have some legitimacy. Per her logic, all fans of football must love the Tennessee Vols because the football fans that I know are supporters of the Volunteers.

This is a tired argument. When will liberals get over it? You aren’t real or legitimate if you deviate from the prescribed position of your identity group. If you’re a conservative woman, you deviate from feminists and are some type of faux-woman. If you’re black and attend Tea Parties, you’re an Uncle Tom. As Michelle Malkin notes today, liberals are oddly obsessed with her race since she’s a conservative of Filipino descent. She doesn’t fit their existing frame of Asian women, so she must not be a real one.

Since their liberalness gives them supreme authority over the universe, we must adjust to fit their definitions of “right.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Bennett continues:

I would love to live in a world where all female politicians support these same values. However, given the recent rise of socially conservative and anti-choice women candidates such as Carly Fiorina, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin herself, we know this is not true.

When will feminists drop the ridiculous notion that women need to vote together as a single bloc because we all have ovaries? That’s a sexist and demeaning view. It expresses a belief that women aren’t complicated, intelligent or capable of making their own decisions. We need to overthrow the patriarchy and obey the whims of the matriarchy.

Honestly Ms. Bennett, get over yourself and realize that no one made you or your liberal elite feminist cronies the queen of all women. I’m sick of being told how to react to the media, politics or fashion through your jaded, bra-burning lenses. I’m sick of being told that abortion is the absolute end-all political issue because I happened to be born with a uterus. I’m sick of being told that because I’m socially and fiscally conservative, something is wrong with me. SHUT THE F*!&$ UP, AND STOP TELLING ME HOW TO ACT. I’M CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT. DEAL WITH IT.

Ironically, Ms. Bennett starts having issue with her own skewed version of logic.

Luckily, Palin’s band of ‘Mama Grizzlies’ is just a small faction of women. But you wouldn’t guess that based on her overly-generalized video or vague talk of women’s collaboration. And that’s why I want to be clear:

Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.

I’d love to know how Ms. Bennett knows exactly what percentage of women in the GOP are “Mama Grizzlies.” As far as I know, no poll has asked this question. It’s a number I’m curious to discover, but no one will conclusively know until after the election in November.

Given polling, I’d say my estimates are more accurate than Ms. Bennett’s. A record number of GOP women are running. More Americans identify as conservative than any other ideology group, more Americans are pro-life (including younger generations), a near majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare and the recent DOJ lawsuit against Arizona, about half of the country disapproves of Obama’s job performance, and a whopping 66% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. I’d like to know what evidence she has to back up her claim.

Oh, it’s a nice little poll from her Women’s Campaign Forum, a “nonpartisan” group supporting women, which happens to link to only left-wing sites, and supports only liberal women (see a lot of political diversity on this list?). Her amazing statistic, upon which her entire column rests, is likely one of those generic polls that group three or four data points together in order to get a wow statistic that absolutely proves whatever policy point they’re trying to make.  What is her basis of logic for this data point? Per her HuffPo column:

In fact, since 81% of Americans believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should have control over their own important life decisions, Palin’s staunchly anti-choice beliefs are in direct contradiction of the majority of not just her party, but everyone.

81% of anything, particularly all Americans, should be suspect. What exactly is the question? Only the highlighted finding is published.

A large majority (81%) believe that regarding these important life decisions, individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families, according to their own circumstances and values.

I apologize for my language today, but what the hell does that mean? What are important life decisions? That’s a pointedly leading question. When you drill down, that quote doesn’t necessarily just reflect abortion issues, but contraception and sex education. Those are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities. For example, I’m staunchly pro-life, but I have no issue with the use of contraception. The two issues can’t be lumped together.

The question originated in a Harris Interactive poll from 2006. Hmmm….what year is it? Who was president in 2006? What was the rate of unemployment in 2006? Furthermore, that exact question is not mentioned anywhere in their limited findings, which backs up my assumption. It’s a nice little statistic designed to be a pull quote in marketing materials but is statistically inaccurate. Also, current polling data conflicts with yours.

The time frame on the poll is also questionable.

While it generally takes a bit of time for organizations to release polls, it never takes…four years.

What happened here?

It looks like–in an effort to be relevant given the success of the Mama Grizzly speech–that the WCF dusted off an old poll and tried to make it appear current.

Even if this poll did not ask leading questions, which by all accounts it does, the world is a radically different place in 2010 than 2006. In 2006 most people thought Hillary Clinton would currently be president or lose to a Republican in 2008. Not many people anticipated the housing bubble bursting or the failure of Lehman Brothers. Even fewer people had heard of Sarah Palin, who was just beginning to serve as governor in Alaska. Polling data relating to women’s issues can’t be translated over the course of the last four years. Too much has changed.

Ms. Bennett, next time you decide to write a little op-ed, perhaps you should realize that women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative. You may run a nice little liberal group, safe in your left-wing enclave of feminist sisters, but America is far more politically diverse than you’re willing to admit.

You may also want to find a more current poll next time, too.

Cancer is a very real and scary thing in my family, particularly breast and ovarian cancer. When I give my medical history to new doctors, they usually stop writing about five minutes into it and just stare at me. It’s that bad, especially on my mom’s side.

When the Susan G. Komen Foundation reached out and asked me to post information about the Global Race for the Cure, I promised to help. I had completely forgotten to write about it until I saw their newsletter this morning.

The 21st annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure in Washington, D.C. will be tomorrow morning. Per the organization’s newsletter, late registration is still open today from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency on the Hill.

The race kicks off tomorrow morning at  7:30 a.m. with opening ceremonies on the National Mall.

Awareness of breast cancer is an interesting topic. Many companies have been accused of pink-washing to get a coveted pink ribbon on their packaging. For example, is it good for KFC to promote breast cancer awareness when obesity increases cancer risks?  It’s also hard to track where all the money goes. So many huge organizations are raising money to fight cancer. How do you ensure accountability?

The Komen Foundation passed on local facts:

Last year, the race raised $4.7 million for local education and community outreach programs that work tirelessly to assist vulnerable populations.  Some organizations that received grants this year include: Whitman-Walker Clinic on 14^th Street, Food and Friends, Georgetown University and Sibley Memorial Hospital.

There has been some controversy over the Komen Foundation funding grants for Planned Parenthood, which is explained here. Given their history and priorities, I would love to see Planned Parenthood close down its doors throughout the country. They are the main source of reproductive health care in many rural and low income neighborhoods and do provide services besides abortion. Quite simply, Christians have neglected to fill this gap in services, so Planned Parenthood stepped in to fill a legitimate need. It doesn’t make the entire organization less reprehensible, but I have no issue with the Komen Foundation fulfilling its mission by funding organizations with the capacity to help.

Unfortunately, there are many murky political issues that surround cancer research. Those should be examined and are important. However, when you watch a relative slowly waste away from cancer that should have been detected early or watch someone struggle through chemo, it changes your perspective. I think the Komen Foundation has tried to address this issue and respect both sides while fulfilling their goal.

Anyone with a loved one facing the Big C understands the need to do something about it. I’m not a research scientist or a nurse. I can’t help patients with cancer or find a cure for the disease, but I can donate money and raise awareness of programs that are helping patients and searching for a cure.

Unfortunately, I spend a lot of time writing posts against Feministing. As a commenter Brando said the other day, “as for Feministing, the excerpt you posted is typical of their sputtering vitriol and merits no comment. They’re too busy seething with hatred to let a rational thought enter their heads.”

What an accurate description! However, Feministing is one of the more prominent ones in lefty gal world, so people actually get their information and draw their opinions there. (Does that make you cringe, too?)

It makes my day when kick-ass conservative women bloggers, like Lori Ziganto, take on Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing. Given that Lori actually makes logical arguments and the extent of Jessica’s are typically, “but that’s so f—ing stupid to ME, so THEY are wrong.” (Don’t believe me? Read her books). Apparently Lori ruffled a few feathers, which resulted in Cassy Fiano responding at Hot Air.

What was all the fuss over? A simple ad in NYC subways that states, “abortion changes you.”

For the past few months, I’ve read numerous reports about pro-abortion women angered at the concept that abortion could change you. As John Hawkins described, it’s rather mild. Yet to feminists, this ad was incredibly offensive. No one should dare question their opinion on abortion. As liberal women, they have the final word.

Cassy touches on a subject that I’ve tried to understand:

It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions.

I’ve seen that same enthusiasm and find it cold and calculating. Mentally, I’ve started referring to these type of women as the baby killer cheerleaders. You have women reveling in their abortion stories, bowling for abortion, blogging for abortion and tweeting an abortion. It doesn’t quite resonate with the “safe, legal, rare” drumbeat that liberals tried to use in the 90s. I guess the new motto is “YEA! ABORTION!”

As part of the larger liberal movement, feminists completely eliminate the concept of personal responsibility. A group of women doesn’t want to accept responsibilities for their actions and are convinced that women can and should have the same sexual abandon as a frat boy. They don’t want to deal with the consequences, and abortion makes it convenient for them. Don’t want a baby? Poof! Abortion makes the little unwanted mass of tissues disappear.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and a majority of Americans agree. Every woman who stands up and says, “this attitude and behavior is not acceptable” only highlights the shallow callousness of pro-abortion women. In order to succeed, they must silence all opposition and bully other women into agreeing with them. That’s the only pro-woman way, right?

Kudos to Cassy and Lori. I wish more women on the right would take on Jessica Valenti and others like her.

There are few new arguments in the abortion debate, which is heating back up thanks to health care. Honestly, abortion comes down to perspective.

Those on the pro-life side view the issue from the perspective of the unborn. Thanks to neo-natal medicine, it’s difficult to argue that life doesn’t start at conception or very shortly afterward. As I’ve written before, feminists are becoming more and more comfortable with the fact that abortion is murder. They just de-value the life of the unborn, placing the emphasis on the woman and her education and economic conditions.

It’s a sleight of hand to re-frame the issue since they’ve lost major ground on previous talking points. (i.e. reproductive justice, abortion’s cool!) The economic conditions and education of women likely to get abortion are still huge issues, but it is unacceptable to justify the premeditated termination of a life due to convenience.

But what about the condition of the unborn? Even if feminists are accept that abortion kills a living human, is it humane?

Many people aren’t aware that we have humane slaughter laws in this country. Passed in 1958, Congress stipulated that livestock should not unduly suffer when slaughtered. Animals do feel pain and these laws are right. For example, chickens are stunned before their heads are cut off at poultry plants around the country.

I’ve always wondered if we try to prevent chickens from experiencing pain at death, how come we don’t care about how cruel abortion is to the fetus?

Yesterday, a Red State post highlighted that Nebraska is debating banning abortion after 20 weeks based on evidence that a fetus can experience pain.

Even if you believe abortion should be legal, is it acceptable to barbarically terminate a life? If a 20-week fetus can experience pain, few would argue that abortion is horrific.

Whether it’s a D&C, saline or suction, how can you not acknowledge abortion is inhumane? Abortion isn’t a magic pill that makes the baby go “poof!” Most procedures are invasive to the woman and either cut the fetus apart, burn it alive with saline or suck it apart.

Remember that our society protects chickens from feeling pain, but not a fetus.

Based on precedent of humane slaughter laws and even capital punishment, shouldn’t we re-examine this as a society? Regardless if you think that abortion should be legal or not, commonly used abortion procedures are inhumane. It’s difficult to debate that fact.

(video H/T: Suzy B)

Finally! The pro-life community is fired up and ready to take down so-called “pro-life” Democrats. After the Stupak sham yesterday, I haven’t seen the gloves come off in a long, long time.

Some may scoff, thinking the pro-life community is dead. Remember that young people are more pro-life than pro-choice.

Also, the pro-abortion community has been vastly out-fundraised in recent years. That’s out-fundraised in years when there hasn’t been a major pro-life battle waged. The appointments of Sotomayor and Sebelius were the biggest ones in recent years. With Stupak there’s an element of betrayal that people will not soon forget. He made it personal.

The grassroots are out for blood. The RNC hit their goal of raising $402,010 in less than 12 20* hours and just upped their moneybomb. Last night on Twitter, people were practically throwing their wallets at anyone who was running against Stupak in MI-1. The path to November will be quite a ride.

Susan B. Anthony List quickly took back the “Defender of Life” award that was promised to Stupak at their event next week. The Susan B. Anthony Candidate List Fund president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the press:

“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”

National Right to Life:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The Family Research Council released the strongest statement I’ve ever seen Tony Perkins utter:

FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong today, and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote.

Americans United for Life have a blog post up explaining why Stupak’s Executive Order still funds abortion.

*I was wrong. The RNC hit their goal after 20 hours via TechRepublican.

Last week, Gallup released a poll showing that younger Americans (18-29) are more pro-life than their parents. This is particularly interesting since 18-29 year-olds only represents about half of the Millenial generation, yet we are trending more conservative than our parents did on this issue.

This could be a reflection of society growing more pro-life, which Gallup has reported for a while now. However, the generation billed as the most “socially liberal” is far more pro-life than our parents were at our age.

Today, via Feministing, I saw the results of a survey the Girl Scouts released, Good Intentions: The Beliefs and Values of Tweens and Teens today that surveyed the younger members and complements the Gallup survey.  The Girl Scout survey was actually a better sample than Gallup with 3,263 girls and boys in grades 3-12 who were both in and out of scouting (Gallup only had about 1,000 in the 18-29 cohort). The survey revealed similar findings for the school-aged sample as Gallup did:

Another topic of interest in this survey was youth’s attitudes about abortion. The proportion of 7th- to 12th-graders who agree that abortion is all right is lower today than it was in 1989. Fewer youth today (25%) than in 1989 (33%) believe that “abortion is all right if having a baby will change your life plans in a way you find hard to live with.” Six in ten (60%) disagree that “abortion is all right, if having a baby will change your life plans”. Fifteen percent do not know how they feel about the matter. Boys are more likely than girls to agree that abortion is all right (29% compared to 20%), and as youth get older they are more likely to agree. White (28%) and Asian (35%) youth in this age bracket are more likely than African Americans (15%) to agree with this as well. (emphasis mine.)

What has made this generation–and society overall–more pro-life? Is it the constant presence of abortion in the news? The development of neo-natal medicine or the loudly silent population of 52 million missing people that were killed before they were born?

I know that much of the health care debate has surrounded the government funding of abortion, and we all know where I fall on that debate. However, I had not read how the Senate bill would implement the policy until I read this Washington Times article:

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?

Despite promises from Obama and a strongly-supported measure in the House, the new version of the health care bill funds abortions. Americans United for Life Action have a new ad urging Congress and Obama to prohibit any federal funding from going to abortions.

Susan B. Anthony List also has more information about abortion and the Health Care Summit last week. This is a major problem. Americans should not be required to fund abortions with tax dollars.