Corpus Cristi versus Ticked Off Trannies

There is gay outrage this week because of the proposed screening of “Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives”, a film by Israel Luna is promoted as a “campy homage to the exploitation films” in which “a group of transgender women are violently beaten and left for dead,” but then “the violated vixens turn deadly divas.”

Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.

"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."

GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "

{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}

"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.

In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "

Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.

Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.

This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.

Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.

Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!

Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.

"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."

That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!

And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."

Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?

On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.

And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.

To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?

Why would that upset Christians?

Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?

I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?

To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."

When homosexuals guard the gate

In one of the most bizarre and offensive twists to the war in Afghanistan, new photographs revealed embassy guards engaged in heavy drinking and lewd sexual acts, such as licking each other’s nipples, grabbing each other's testicles, apparently buggering each other anally, and pouring alcohol down the backs of other guards and drinking it from the buttocks of other guards.

ABC News reports:
“Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints.”

Photos of the behavior have been released that show naked men engaging in sexual “play” with other men. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that “the alleged lewd behavior of guards at the US Embassy in Kabul is ‘offensive’ {and} inexcusable’.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested an investigation into the behavior.

Ironically, the one aspect of this issue that has gone unmentioned is that the offensive behavior was not just “lewd”; it was homosexual. At the same time the Liberals and the Obama administration have been talking about overturning the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, America has just suffered a tremendous disservice by men engaging in homosexual behavior while they were supposed to be guarding our Embassy.

Not only will this serve as a tremendous propaganda boon for the Islamist extremists who want to portray America as a sinful nation, it will also damage the reputation of the US military and civilian guards, even though apparently no US military were engaged in the acts. This type of orgiastic indulgence is not an exception to homosexuality: it is quite typical of it.

These incidents should serve as a warning to everyone. This is exactly why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve “openly” within the military.

Yet again, American values have been embarrassingly undermined by the Liberal tolerance of homosexuals.

Miss America, or Miss Gay America?

Carrie Prejean won the battle. She can keep her title as Miss California USA, and remain the runner up for Miss America. Too bad, Perez Hilton! Your vulgar tirades and obscene insults not only did not prevail, but they left you (and your gay cohorts) with a black eye.

It sounds like it’s just too much to handle for Shanna Moakler, the Miss USA Director who had been campaigning behind the scenes to have Donald Trump kick Prejean out. Why would she do that?

It turns out that Moakler didn’t approve of Prejean’s traditional view of marriage, and the fact that the scandal provoked by Perez Hilton’s bigoted attacks on Prejean turned Miss California into the de facto poster child for traditional marriage. Moakler rankled at the fact that Prejean began speaking at events that opposed gay marriage, a cause for which Moakler is a champion.

Moakler resigned today, saying:
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization…I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth."

A description of the role of Miss America (from the Miss America website), reads:
“Today, Miss America travels approximately 20,000 miles a month, changing her location every 24 to 48 hours. She tours the nation reaching out to support her ideals, committed to helping others. Miss America is more than just a title. She is a woman who reflects a tradition of style, sophistication and service.”

Note that Miss America reaches out to support her ideals—not some prescribed set of ideals that are imposed upon her. If the newly crowned Miss America, Katie Stam, were incapable of fulfilling her duties, then Miss Prejean would step in to replace her. And in that case, she would be free to promote her ideals, which obviously include promoting a traditional definition of marriage.

So Moakler’s resignation is a clear protest that, unless Miss America represents her personal ideals, she refuses to support it, and is removing herself like the narcissistic brat she is. In her myopic view, which she shares with the gay rights fanatics, there is only one right way of viewing this topic, and it’s her view. Her opinion is the right opinion, she presumes to have the moral high ground, and cannot associate herself with any heretics who disagree with her. Miss Prejean must appear to her to be as offensive as a White-Supremacist or a Neo-Nazi.

This arrogance cannot be disregarded as unique: it is emblematic of the intolerance of the entire gay-rights movement, because it is so closely aligned with the actions and offensively stated beliefs of Perez Hilton.

The great irony is that Hilton has been allowed to remain, and was even encouraged by Trump to return in the future. A few semi-topless images of Miss Prejean warranted a full investigation into her worthiness as a “Miss America” representative, and yet Hilton’s disparagement of Miss California as a “dumb bitch” does not draw even the slightest criticism?

In short, the message is clear: men who like sex with women but who disrespect women are disgusting misogynists, but men who like sex with other men and disrespect women are—as Keith Olbermann put it—“intellectual titans”. And only women who approve of men who like men are worthy of the crown.

Perhaps we should rename the contest: The Miss Gay America Pageant.

Hate Speech and Secret Agendas

This past week, Britain’s Home Secretary Jacqui Smith published a list of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October due to their “extreme behavior” or speech. While this list did contain the names of a number of actual terrorists, it also included that of Michael Savage, conservative American talk show host who is for his libertarian bent.
Smith explained her decision by saying that "it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."
Having listened to perhaps a half dozen of Savages programs, I have a fairly limited exposure to his “rants”, but enough to be able to comment that, in my experience, I have never heard Savage say anything I would consider qualifies him as an “extremist”. He regularly criticizes liberals, but also vents on Republicans whom he believes are not living up to conservative or libertarian ideals. He vehemently denies having ever called for any violence, and I have never heard him do so either. According to the Huffington Post, Savage has called the Quran a “book of hate”, among other things, and responds to the accusations that he is a dangerous extremist by saying: "She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech?”

But perhaps facts are unimportant to liberals in power: what matters is the “feeling” they get when listening to people whose opinions they don’t share. And when they hear these opinions, rather than agreeing that it constitutes part of the individual’s constitutional rights of freedom of speech, they instead seek to shut down the discussion. In this case, Smith continues that Savage is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause intercommunity tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country".

What is interesting in this quote is not that Savage is promoting violence, but that rejection of his speech might “cause intercommunity tension or even violence”. Really? Who exactly would be likely to respond violently to his statement that the Quran is a “book of hate”? Oh, that’s right; the same people who murdered Theo van Gogh: the Muslims.

In our country, the First Amendment to the US constitution was written to protect the individual’s right to speech—especially speech considered by some to be “offensive”. Why? Because the founding fathers were reacting the tyranny of a government that prohibited speech that offended the powerful and was perceived to threaten the status quo. Perhaps the queasy English still cannot stomach powerful language, which is why the books of Jonathon Swift were once banned. Fear of a reaction to speech by groups that react violently to criticism has led the UN to consider banning any statements that “offend Islam”. Beware the global thought police knocking down your door someday lest your statements offend someone in another part of the globe.

Given their way, liberals would have this policy of banning speech also apply to a wide range of “protected” groups. Here in the USA, liberals are pushing to expand “hate crime” legislation to cover a wide variety of groups based upon their sexuality. Reacting to the pressures of the pro-gay constituency, House Judiciary Democrats are promoting HR 1913. This bill would specify protections for anyone victimized by a hate crime to include “sexual orientation”, without limitations on the definition of “sexual orientation”. The idea is that homosexuals should be protected from any sort of criminal victimization including negative, insulting or degrading comments about their sexual orientation. But when some conservatives realized that this would also grant protections to folks whose sexual orientation included pedophilia, they tried to amend the act to exclude that and a few other sexual proclivities—and these proposed changes were rejected.

According to an article published in WVW News, “No homosexual, whether he be into sado-masochism, bestiality, transvestism, necrophilia (sex with the dead), or pedophilia, should consider himself outside special protection.” In fact, no person with those orientations and many more would be excluded.

In short, by definition of a “Hate Crime”, a person does not just have to perpetrate a violent act against a protected group, because “Hate Speech” is also a Hate Crime. Therefore, any speech deemed by the elite to constitute Hate Speech would be covered and would be punishable.

A definition of Hate Speech given at Wikipedia includes the following:
“Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.”

So what does this mean for you and me? If we were to say, for example, that “pedophiles are monsters”, the champions of diverse sexual orientations could say we were “degrading” pedophiles, our language could be qualified as “hate speech”, and that we had committed a “hate crime”. To say that necrophiliacs—yes, people who find it fulfilling to have intercourse with corpses—were “disgusting creeps”, we again would have committed a crime. What about zoophiles (people who have sex with animals)? They would also be protected.

Mind you, the speech does not have to promote violence or even use insulting language to be considered by some to be Hate Speech. There are cases were individuals who simply stated that they believed homosexuality to be immoral or perverted were accused of a Hate Crime. And in the pro-queer hysteria that is energizing the liberals, even if speech does not pass the threshold of a punishable Hate Crime, it can trigger virulent attacks against the individual, such as in the recent case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Responding to a question about her opinion about Gay Marriage posed to her by Miss America judge Perez Hilton, Miss Prejean honestly stated that her religious and personal beliefs led her to believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. For that simple response, Hilton posted a blog video calling her a “dumb bitch”. While on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, Michael Musto even said that he knew that Miss Prejean was “formerly Harry Prejean, a homophobic man who liked marriage so much he did it three times” and underwent surgery to get her “penis” cut off, while Olbermann insulted her by saying “she is not only just a boob, but a fake boob.”

Last time I checked, women were also protected from misogynist Hate Speech—but apparently not if it comes from a gay, or a popular liberal talk show host. The hatred in their opinions that spurted from their lips was utterly undeniable and was the most offensive Speech from the left since Obama supporters sported t-shirts reading “Sarah Palin is a cunt.”

This stunning example of hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg, and hints at a disturbing trend of the injustice and oppression to come.

In recent years, another bastion of traditional values that has come under attack is the Boy Scouts of America organization (BSA). Their offense: they reject homosexuals participating in the organization. The liberal, pro-queer media has portrayed their position as a clear example of homophobia, In his article, “Pedophile Priests and Boy Scouts”, David Kupelian writes:
“In the last year or so, many Americans, organizations and corporations have withdrawn their financial and moral support from the Boy Scouts of America, marginalizing and condemning the organization as bigoted and hateful. Many United Way chapters have ceased to fund the BSA, some local governments have declared it to be discriminatory, and, toward the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an executive order used by a federal agency to try to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands.”

He explains that, while the public in general has correctly chastised the Catholic Church for not taking drastic steps to curtail the sexual exploitation of children by Priests, the liberals have attacked the BSA as “homophobes” because they actually did take steps to protect the boys in the organization. Kupelian explains, “Historically, the BSA has had a serious problem with sexual offenses by male leaders against Scouts – so serious that prevention has become a major preoccupation, with constant leader screening and training, the ‘two-deep leadership’ requirement and programs for Scouts to identify warning signs of inappropriate advances by adults.”

So the BSA is attacked and vilified for taking preventative steps to prevent homosexual exploitation of the young boys in the organization, while the Catholic Church is contradictorily attacked for NOT taking similar preventative steps!

Kupelian then reveals a shocking analysis. The mainstream liberal media has misreported the “Church scandal” in such a way as to hide the disgusting truth that the majority of pedophile cases were homosexual. They did this by incorrectly lumping cases where heterosexual priests engaged in inappropriate activity with women as “pedophilia”, in order to increase the percentage of hetero-pedophilia and disguise the rampant homosexual proclivities of many of the Priests. He writes: “Stephen Rubino, a lawyer who has represented over 300 alleged victims of priest abuse, estimates 85 percent of the victims have been teen-age boys. And Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated many victims and offending priests, agrees with that figure, noting that 90 percent of his patients are either abused teen-age males or their priest abusers.”

Other investigations come to the same conclusion. " ‘Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,’ wrote Steve Baldwin in, ‘Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,’ soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.” How rampant is the problem?

" ‘The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,’ said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. ‘Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.’"

Before you come to the conclusion that this is “Hate Speech” promoted by conservative Homophobes, consider the following citations from the article:
• The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
• In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
• Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
• In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
• Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

We can now understand the motivations for why the pro-gay activists want to include protections in HR 1913 for Pedophiles and other perverts: because, from their perspective, “they are us”, so to speak. And, were they given the power they so desire, they would label the research discussed above as “Hate Speech”, the authors could be prosecuted as criminals. The liberals speak with forked tongues, condemning “pedophile priests” on the one hand, but demanding that anyone who slurs queer pedophiles be prosecutable for having committed Hate Crimes.

***UPDATE***
Barely two hours after posting this blog, I found the following interesting news:
Facebook urged to remove Holocaust-Denial Sites. "Attorney Brian Cuban, brother of Dallas Mavericks team owner Mark Cuban, has been trying since last year to have the pages of groups with such names as "Holocaust: A Series of Lies," and "Holocaust is a Holohoax" removed from Facebook." He continues: "There is no First Amendment right to free speech in the private realm," Cuban said. "This isn't a freedom-of-speech issue. Facebook is free to set the standard that they wish."
Really? As repulsive as Holocaust Denial is, and I find it pretty disgusting, I find it interesting that we are told that there is "no First Amendment right in the private realm". So Facebook is "free to set the standard that they wish"?
Why then was the same standard not applied to the dating service eHarmony, which did not want to create a parralel homosexual dating service? After months of pressure and attacks that the owners were homophobes (there's that word again), eHarmony was sued and finally caved in, after being sued for being exclusive.
The left has exposed its contradictory values yet again.

Abortion: Necessary for a better society

OK, so according to the media, and to many supposed “thinkers” today, abortion is “established policy”, with a long standing precedent since the Roe-v-Wade case.

Some feminists argue that “a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time.”

Abortion is not murder, because “a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman.”

According to some of America’s brightest minds, “a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.”

And, according to others, “let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1.
That's why we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions.”

So, there you have it, in a nutshell: A human fetus is not human; it’s just a collection of cells with the potential for becoming human, and resides in the mother’s womb by her choice, with its permission to be there revocable at any time. In fact, a fetus is a blood sucking little creature that is more akin to a parasite than a human being.

Conservatives, embrace reality. Abortion is here to stay. Breathe deeply. Exhale.
Isn’t science wonderful? With some scientists such as David Lovelock saying that billions of humans are going to die over the next century because global warming in “inevitable” and “irreversible”, I guess the value of human life has decreased significantly.

Oh, by the way, did you know that there are scientists claiming that there is a gay gene? Yeah, dig it, man. There is a gene that determines your sexuality. No choice involved. You either like people of the opposite sex or of the same sex because you were programmed that way. Interesting, right?

So I’m wondering: why not demand that the government make sure that all citizens have ready, cheap access to the test for gayness, so we will know right away if our sons and daughters are more likely to be queer?

And then, of course, we’ll just abort them.

Why would liberals be offended by this analysis? You know they will be, after all, they went ballistic when conservative Albert Mohler considered the moral dilemma of aborting gay fetuses.

What? What do you mean that’s offensive?

I’m not talking about killing actual gays! Because the fetus is not a person, it is not born yet, it has not had its first sexual experience, but it only has the potential for being a gay. So it’s not actually murder to kill it. And besides, it’s really just a parasite. Right?

I wonder what else has genetic implications.

You know, I might actually support the notion of a single-payer health system, if only all the personality types that would drive up cost excessively could be eliminated before they were insured. That’s a great idea!

Obesity. There appears to be an obesity gene. Well, that’s one way of fixing the obesity epidemic. Let’s abort the potentially fat fetuses.

Addiction. There is a genetic factor for addiction. We can get rid of gamblers, alcoholics, and drug addicts by killing them before they are even human. GREAT! We’re on a roll.

Clumsiness. Yep, scientists even say there may be a genetic connection to accident-prone people. Let’s call it the “Butter-finger gene”. And you know these no good slip-on-bananas, freeze-their-tongues-to-the-flagpole morons inevitably drive up the cost of good health care. That's why the Canadian system is so over-crowded.

Promiscuity. Well, I can’t find evidence that there is a “ho-gene”, but there is apparently a monogamy gene. People with this gene are far more likely to be faithful. So, logically, the ones without it will be slutty, and we all know that it was that personality trait that spread AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases around the world. So, here’s what you do: unless the worthless, parasitic fetus clearly shows that it is in possession of the monogamy gene, you abort it. Kill it now, before it spreads vaginal warts or breaks someone’s heart.

Slothfulness. Man, we’re working our way through the 7 deadly sins. Now there is a theory there is a lazy gene. And I have to agree with the liberals on this: lazy people really are like parasites. So let’s abort those no good sons of bitches right now, before they grow up to be habitual democrat voters demanding more entitlements!

Retardation. I mean, think of the money we'd save. No more short buses! No more retarded grocery sackers placing the eggs under the cans of beans. But then again, films like Radio and Forrest Gump would never be made.

Wymyn. Heck, why not? The Chinese do it. If the fetus is going to be a girl, just kill it. What the hell. What Dad wouldn’t rather have a son he can take out to shoot helpless animals? And since a lot of them grow up to be annoying Femi-Nazis and Code Pink activists, it would probably eliminate a lot of male irritation and make the world a more peaceful place.

Conclusion: SO, I wonder what would actually happen in this country if conservatives actually switched camps and began to promote the unlimited abortion of fetuses based upon tests showing that the fetus displays one of these traits?

How many potentially gay, fat, clumsy, slothful, promiscuous, druggy, wymyn fetuses have to get aborted before the Democrats change their tune?