LifeNews.com

Why Does Planned Parenthood Support Women in Combat? Abortion

by Jill Stanek | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/28/13 5:15 PM

National

The Hill columnist A. B. Stoddard maintains the Pentagon’s announcement last week that it would allow women to be deployed in combat did not come out of the blue, although it certainly appeared to.

I was suspicious of a liberal agenda, of course. But still I found Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ tweet quite curious:

Ty Secretary Panetta for lifting military ban on women in combat

Why would a woman purposefully support sending her sisters into harm’s way to be injured or killed in combat or raped and tortured as POWs? Is it really all about proving we are equal to men in every way?

Why would a woman purposefully support sending her sisters into harm’s way to be injured or killed in combat or raped and tortured as POWs? Is it really all about proving we are equal to men in every way?

But moderator Carder’s choice of today’s Quote of the Day turned on the light bulb.

Of course the abortion industry would support sending women into combat. CNN anchor Don Lemon nailed the foremost problem:

Men and women are different, we know that. How should the military handle pregnancy, for example, for women in combat units? Should a combat unit leader be able to direct a woman member not to get pregnant?

No, liberals and conservatives both would protest.

But if a woman finds herself pregnant in combat, there are serious questions. If she wants to carry her baby to term, can she be compelled to stay and fight anyway? In certain situations there may be no other option. Can she be ordered to leave? Either way, does she put her unit at risk?

2013-01-28_0826What if a pregnant mother goes into labor in a foxhole? It could happen. There are mothers who successfully hide their pregnancies or don’t know they’re pregnant. We’ve all heard the stories.

But what about pregnant mothers on the front lines who don’t want to stay pregnant? They’ll need a quick fix. They’ll need an abortion. And therein lies the reason liberal feminists and the abortion industry support deploying women in combat: It’s a gateway to force the military to provide abortions, which at present it does not.

Feminists and the abortion lobby have for years – every year – tried to overturn the ban against offering abortions at military facilities. They also, of course, support public funding of abortions of women in the military.

Deploying female soldiers to the front lines almost forces the military to do both, in the interest of maintaining its strength.

If this happens, doctors, medics, and nurses in combat military units will be forced to learn the procedure, a side benefit to the abortion industry – desensitization as well as future employee prospects.

I can also foresee women supplied with the morning after pill and menstrual extraction or menstrual regulation packs (photo right) as part of their combat kits.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

Menstrual extraction was devised by feminists in the 1970s to self-suction uterine contents when a period is late. This is what Yale student Aliza Shvarts claimed she did for her infamous art project.

Objectively speaking, liberal feminists would obviously be forced to approve deploying women in combat by their obsession with being just like men, which is the opposite of true feminism.

But clearly, they have an agenda, and as always, it exploits and hurts women.

Also, don’t be surprised if President Obama and Cecile Richards have plans to slip Planned Parenthood into this entire process.

LifeNews.com Note: Jill Stanek fought to stop “live birth abortions” after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. That led to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation, signed by President Bush, that would ensure that proper medical care be given to unborn children who survive botched abortion attempts.