There’s a reason why I rarely cover radical feminism. Those ladies are clearly nuts.
My tendency is to back away slowly from crazy people, and figure they’re just not worth my time.
Someone who does think they’re worth his time is my friend and fellow blogger Robert Stacy McCain. If you’ve visited his blog for the past couple of years, you may have noticed that he has been blogging almost exclusively on the subject.
RS McCain is convinced that radical feminism is going to be a critical issue in 2016 and the #WarOnWomen rhetoric Democrats had so much success with in 2012, will return with a vengeance (what with Hillary Clinton on the top of the ticket.) I think he’s right about this, and that is why we all should be paying more attention to this unpalatable subject.
The President had a meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican, Thursday, where they talked about “the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform” according to a statement put out by the Vatican.
This morning, 27 March 2014, the Hon. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America, was received in audience by His Holiness Pope Francis, after which he met with His Eminence Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State, and Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.
During the cordial meetings, views were exchanged on some current international themes and it was hoped that, in areas of conflict, there would be respect for humanitarian and international law and a negotiated solution between the parties involved. In the context of bilateral relations and cooperation between Church and State, there was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform. Finally, the common commitment to the eradication of trafficking of human persons in the world was stated.
Here is the Politico’s coverage of Obama’s visit with the Pope, via Father Z(emphasis his):
VATICAN CITY — President Barack Obama was once the biggest superstar on the international stage. On Thursday, he headed here to benefit from the popularity of his replacement: Pope Francis.
The 50-minute meeting was a rare chance for Obama to associate himself with a world leader whose cool factor far outweighs his own, and it comes at a critical time in his presidency. The White House is still recovering from what aides call a “lost year,” and the president’s job approval ratings at home are dipping to new lows.
[…]
Obama planned to use the closely watched meeting to show how aligned he is with the pope on income inequality, poverty and immigration — issues important to both the White House and Democrats as they try to paint Republicans as insensitive to the needs of Americans before the upcoming midterms.
“He needs the Francis bump,” said Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at The Catholic University of America.
[…]
White House aides — starting at the top with chief of staff Denis McDonough, who is an observant Catholic — speak excitedly about that connection to the pope. And that’s the sense among their outside allies as well. Francis is a huge help in talking about income inequality, they feel, both because he elevates the issue and depoliticizes it, putting the Democrats onto higher moral ground.
As far as Obama and his acolytes are concerned, the visit was all about Obama, and reviving his popularity with members of the church he’s at war with. Will this his visit with the Pope give the president a “bump” in his approval rating? After all, they agree on so much – income inequality, poverty and immigration…
(No mention from the White House on the religious freedom lecture the most viciously pro-abortion and anti-Catholic president in American history surely received.)
“On the one hand you’ve got the Bishop of Rome, the Holy See, of whom a billion co-religionists believe in his infallibility,” Krauthammer said. “On the other hand you’ve got a man who said, ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.’ So who are you going to choose?”
Fusion TV’s Jorge Ramos spoke with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards during a segment called, “Is there a Place For Planned Parenthood in Politics?” Ramos, who’s been dubbed the Walter Cronkite of Hispanic media, asked Richards when she believed life begins, and he didn’t let America’s foremost abortion advocate get away with filibustering her answer. She tried to dodge the question by saying, “this is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries, and people come down with very different points of view on that.” Ramos pressed her, “but for you what’s that point.”
Cecile, growing annoyed, answered “it is not something that I feel is part of this conversation….I think that every woman has to make her own decision…what we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure that women have all their options…” etc etc etc.
He let her go on like that for awhile, and then he asked for a third time, “why would it be so controversial for you to say when life starts?”
Cecile, sensing that her filibuster was coming to an end, blustered, “well – I don’t think that it’s controversial, but I don’t know that it’s relevant to the conversation. For me, I’m the mother of three children…(brace yourselves)... for me life began when I delivered them. Um..They’ve been probably the most important thing in my life ever since…but that’s my own personal decision.”
Life begins precisely after the doctor pulls the baby out of the mother.
She carried three children to term and none of them became human beings to her until after they were born. Before then, they were lumps of tissue mass at the mercy of her feminist whims. If she had changed her mind one day before her due date, and personally decided not to become a mother – that late term abortion would have been hunky-dory because the child wasn’t human. It’s not a human unless a woman says it is (it is for her to decide) and Cecile Richards said her unborn children weren’t human until after they were born.
There is no objective truth. There is only what is convenient and expedient. If the unborn is convenient, it’s a human. If it isn’t convenient, it’s a thing.
Nice Deb 
