Militant shockers shock


The Family Research Council doesn’t like Nina Pillard.

Unfortunately for Americans, the Senate won’t have to dig too deep to uncover some of Pillard’s shockers. Among some of her greatest hits, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General argues that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.”

Yes – and? Can Tony Perkins really think it’s not true that sometimes women have been made pregnant when they didn’t want to be? Really? Can he even think it wasn’t very common before contraception became widely available, and still is in many parts of the world where women don’t have the right or ability to say no?

As if her militant feminism wasn’t apparent enough, she takes the opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the abortion-contraception mandate as “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”

The Family Research Council should be called the Family Is Mandatory Council.

Comments

  1. says

    Also on abstinence-only education, she didn’t say that it’s inherently against equal protection, just that in practice, the curricula tend to put very different expectations on boys and girls and gave examples.

  2. Donnie says

    but the FRC cannot be a racist hate group! They have a picture of an africian-american couple on the banner page /snark

    Seriously, they are the Family Research Council, shouldn’t they have pictures of, you know, families or a rotating banner with different families or newlyweds – excluding the nasty LBGT families (the excluding comment is snark as well)

    Why do not some people think through these things?

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Your email address will not be published.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>