Life News

Planned Parenthood, Gloria Steinem Join Liberal Orgs for Inauguration Protest

Just one day after the upcoming presidential inauguration, Gloria Steinem, Planned Parenthood, and many other liberal advocates have made plans to protest on Capitol Hill in what will be known as the Women’s March on Washington.

The purpose of protest appears vague other than expressing opposition to the new Presidential administration and exercising an opportunity to rally liberals on the basis of identity politics once again. Not surprisingly, the partners joining Steinem and Planned Parenthood include liberal organizations such as The Center for Reproductive Rights, Moms Demand Action, and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), all of which advocate for liberal policies.

Many of these organizations are supported by dozens of corporations who continually fund the liberal agenda in regards to abortion, same-sex marriage, undermining religious liberty, etc. To see our entire company scores database, click here.

On a more positive note, you can join fellow pro-lifers in Washington, D.C. exactly one week after the Women’s March on Washington at March for Life, an event organized each year in remembrance of the millions of Americans who have lost their lives to abortion and help shape a course towards a culture that embraces life. Add your name to the list to march for life here!

  • Sinjin Smythe

    I thought she was dead!


      She will be soon after the Lord’s Man is inaugurated as President of the United States! All our children will see s-t-n’s clawed hand reach out of the earth to snatch her soul to hell just before her withered skin bursts into flame! Can’t wait to BURN THE WITCH! Thank G-d for President TRUMP and the coming era of cleansing, punishment and death in Jesus’s name, amen.

    • fortHistruth

      She is, she just has refused the overwhelming ‘hint’ to stop feigning having a life, and drop dead!

    • DT

      Just goes to show you how uninformed you and your ilk are.

      On ALL the issues.

  • fortHistruth

    To paraphrase a line from Tina Turner, ‘…what’s life, got to do, is got to do with it, what’s life, but a thing TO STEAL FROM OTHERS?!’
    A march to parade the ‘rights’ of people and organisations who, not only refuse to admit and accept the overwhelming fact that, they were not denied the opportunity to live, yet which also ‘push their religion’ of selective death on everyone they can.
    What a sick joke to name an agency ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ or even the more innocent sounding ‘Human Rights Campaign’. In order to reproduce and not simply ‘spill seed’, the seed must mate with a fertile egg.
    Once this ‘successful merger’ is accomplished, the life inside the embryo will -when sustained properly by those responsible for their part in starting this new human bodied person-, continue to grow until fully ready for it’s unveiling at birth.
    All physicians have known, from the time of conception -successful merger-, whether the embryo/fetus is sustaining it’s physical life, or whether the ‘yet to be born’ child has ‘left the building’. Get this; they didn’t need to have all the gadgets and high tech devices of today, to figure out whether the babe was living, healthy or not.
    These professional morons are stooges who feel they may decide who lives or dies, and who has how many offspring. They also feel they are part of an ‘elite’ group allowing only a certain amount of ‘little people’ to reproduce. These little people are only to be used by them for what, when, how and for only as long as they feel these ‘expendables’ are useful to their agenda and goals.
    If this sounds far fetched, consider the original story called ‘The Time Machine’. This story was also played on radio, long before the 1960 George Pal cinematic theatre movie.
    None of the numerous ‘dumb’ blondes were over 30. They then, having been previously dumbed down, would be then, without prior warning, or ability to guard against or prepare, hypnotized by an ear-piercing and deafening siren. This was used to turn them into human ‘robots’, to work hard labour underground.
    Once there, the easy life above ground, was replaced by the rude awakening of suddenly becoming a slave. The task masters directly over them resembled heavy metal or acid rock stars, complete with unkempt straggly long hair and eerie glowing red eyes.
    The expendable blondes were not to be heard from again. Only due to a scientist -played by Rod Taylor-, was this particular group of useful people saved.
    What’s this to do with Steinem et. al.? Just that they would have us return to the dark ages, with them as serf and slave masters, and they as the ruling class.
    Suppose we had ‘retroactive’ abortion, with a panel set to decide whether or not people should be killed, post-birth due to the fact that their parents did not have the unfair option -unfair for the unborn-, to opt out of having them as a child. What would Sally Field, say if now, she was faced with post-birth abortion: hers?!
    There are NO ‘rights’ in a gay marriage, or in casual abortion. These things restrict life, end it prematurely and cannot naturally reproduce life without unnatural manipulation of bodily functions to ‘make it possible’ to do so.
    These high paid instigators are tools to divide people, complicate and make the situation worse for ‘the masses’, and then try to corral and herd them like cattle.
    Even Hitchcock said actors should be treated as such. He also said violence should be put ‘…back in the home, where it belongs…’ This said after filming a murder suspense film with Joseph Cotten who tried to murder a relative.
    It is these manipulators using other humans in and for their perverse science experiments who need to be incarcerated and, at best, forced to do hard labour, and that without parole.

    • DT

      Thanks for the ignorant paraphrasing.

      Tina Turner you ain’t.

      If I don’t address a specific point you tried to make, it’s because you failed to type a coherent thought so that others may understand it.

      Well, that’s pretty much the rest of your ramblings.

      • fortHistruth

        Tina Turner i would not be.
        The ‘ramblings’ describe their ‘definition of character’, or lack thereof coming from alleged human beings, supposedly having a heart for other lives.
        Rather, they are myopically selfish, in a tunnel vision journey of their own delusions.
        They deserve the death they would force upon others. Others who cannot defend themselves, being truly innocent victims.

        • DT

          So you lie when you claim to be against murder. In fact, you support murder of those who think differently than you do.

          Now men don’t generally have abortions so it may be that you just think women are unworthy and deserving of death.


          Funny how so-called-christians haven’t got a clue about the teachings of the one for whom the religion is named.

          • fortHistruth

            Not quite, since
            judgment of unjust killing has been the termination of the life of the murderer.
            What they deserve is what they may bring upon themselves, unless they turn from their selective and arbitrary reasoning, of who should live or die.
            Maybe YOU claim i’m for murder, because i said that murderers deserve what they promote, support or try to force, influence or compel others to do.
            When there was no other alternative to killing, then killing would be done to people due to their hellbent and barbaric ways. It was a last resort.
            It is not from me, though you suggested so, that unjustified killing -murder-, should be performed simply because of ‘…those who think differently than [i] do.’
            Especially in the case of partial birth abortions, this murder of the innocent is blatant and undeniable.
            Hard labour and incarceration would not necessarily kill those who sponsor murder of the unborn, except to humble them and hopefully remove their distasteful arrogance.
            No matter whether male or female, whoever supports murder, has lowered themselves as far as honour, integrity or decency.
            Your words do not speak true of me, as you read things into the comment which are not accurate.
            As far as your implication about ‘religion’, and those whom you have termed ‘so-called…’, the fact remains that these ‘rights’ activists have no right to force forced ‘pro-choice’ death upon the unborn, nor their ‘religion’ upon anyone else.
            If their were such a thing as ‘retroactive abortion, their would probably be many more women who would refuse to murder their child -though given the retroactive ‘choice’. Their respect of life for their post natal children would override any influence to murder their post natal children, even if given the ‘chance’. Even if such were legal, those true mothers would NOT opt to kill their own.
            Now you have a generation which doesn’t appreciate other lives, because they devalue their own life.
            The judge is Christ, He judges the living and the dead. He kills and makes alive. It is appointed to all ONCE to die, to themselves, but in the end those who’ve unjustly taken -stolen-, lives from others, are judged as such. This may be referenced in both testaments, even in the writings of ‘Hebrews’, and ‘Revelation’.
            This one does know The Lord’s teachings -assumptions and implications to the contrary notwithstanding-, and can by the proper dividing of that word, and with the help of other like-minded servants, aptly demonstrate such.

          • DT

            Well, here’s the first problem we have. “Your side” of the argument uses the incorrect words all the time in their defence. Your side needs to acquire some dictionaries and use the proper words.

            How invalid is your argument if you make me pull out a dictionary to show you that you are, in fact, wrong in your claims?

            ‘Murder’ is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

            A human being is a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens.

            An abortion is performed on a fetus, which is an unborn offspring of a mammal. (An unborn offspring is a fetus, not a human being.)

            Using the dictionary, we can easily see that abortion is not murder.

            But you seem to happily support actual murder–the murder of actual human beings by other human beings–for exercising their legal civil rights.

            Now who made you judge? I know for a fact the supreme law of the land–U.S. Law–has not made you a judge.

            It is YOU who has “selective and arbitrary reasoning, of who should live or die.”

            I don’t claim you’re for murder, YOU said you were. Pure and simple.

            What is this “partial birth abortion” you speak of? Is it a real thing or a figment of the imagination of the pro-lifers? Back up your statement and be sure to include what a “partial birth abortion” is and why it would take place.

            In your own words, you have shown that you have “lowered themselves as far as honour, integrity or decency [is concerned].”

            I know how to read and interpret written English and the words I speak of you are an interpretation of what you say. My comments are very accurate of the words you use. But I’ve already shown you that you use many incorrect words. Perhaps if you wish to be understood, you’ll consult a dictionary to say what you mean. We have over a million words in the English language. There are plenty of words that can be used to convey any thought. You just have to use the correct words. B-)

            Jesus Christ spoke of what true believers could do. Since not one human being alive today can do these things, logically, there are no true believers, or what has come to be known as “christians.” Because I use correct words, I call those false believers ‘so-called-christians.’ But that’s a topic for debate that may be best suited for another page.

            Pro-choice is not a religion. I urge you to consult a dictionary to learn what aspect of an ideology is required for that ideology to be defined as a religion.

            I know of no pro-choice individual who is forcing women to have abortions.

            Retroactive abortion? You think murdering children is called retroactive abortion?

            You then claim that Christ kills. So it is Christ who aborts these fetuses? It is this Christ who is a failure at preventing them. Seems to me if you have a problem with abortions, that you should go ask your imaginary friend why he allows them to happen?

            Perhaps he is a pedophile and wants to bring the babies directly to where he is. That makes as much sense as anything I’ve ever heard biblical. Isn’t “Jesus loves the little children” a well known so-called-christian saying?

            Learning “the lord’s teachings” with the “help” of OTHER LIKE-MINDED servants is called indoctrination. That’s where one gullible simpleton is taught to not question the mythology.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Using a dictionary, fetus: “: a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born”, Meriam Webster. Further, fetus is Latin for child, offspring.

          • DT

            Great! So you now understand it’s not a human being but developing into one.

            On exactly what day does that magical transformation occur? I’ll want a scientific consensus on this point.


          • Mrs. Harris

            I guess you’re arguing with the dictionary. God bless you. Have a beautiful and joy filled day.

          • DT

            You guess incorrectly. I’m encouraging people who debate to use the correct words.

            We have over a million words in the English language in order to convert an exact understanding of what we mean to say.

          • Mrs. Harris

            I don’t think the dictionary will debate with you.

          • DT

            The dictionary and I are in complete agreement. And it’s honest–unlike debaters.

          • Mrs. Harris

            Dear DT, I hope you will have peace. May God bless you.

  • DT

    2ndVote writers are so ashamed of writing for 2ndVote that they don’t include a byline.