Ted Cruz Makes Disgusting Claim About Those Who Support Abortion Rights

ted-cruz-satanismIt’s no secret that I think Republicans are absolute hypocrites, especially when it comes to our Constitution.  They’re frequently the ones standing tall saying things like, “We need to get back to a Constitutional America!” yet they have absolutely no problem trying to violate the Constitution whenever it supports something with which they disagree.

It’s especially hypocritical when someone like Texas Senator Ted Cruz speaks about “Constitutional values” because he’s staunchly opposes the Affordable Care Act (even though it’s been ruled Constitutional), he’s against same-sex marriage (even though our First Amendment says laws cannot be based on religion) and he’s anti-abortion (even though Roe v Wade declared that women have the right to have control over their own bodies over 40 years ago).

Well, during a speech for the Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) Ted Cruz said that those who support abortion rights chant, “Hail, Satan!” to silence their enemies.

Let me remind you that this is a United States Senator, not some no-name evangelical pastor from some small east Texas church.

So, in other words, Ted Cruz feels that if you support the Constitutionally protected right for women to have control over their own bodies, you’re essentially a satan worshipper.

Cruz’s good buddy Utah Senator Mike Lee also chimed in, saying that abortion rights supporters were dealing with a “culture of death” and participated in “savagery.”

Which means if you support abortion rights, you’re a savage who endorses a culture of death.

Again, these are current United States Senators.  Not random wackos with their own YouTube channel.

It’s absolutely terrifying to me that we have people like these individuals in Congress – especially in 2014.  That in this day and age we have active members of Congress calling Americans who support Constitutional rights satanists and savages.

I always ask, “Are members of Congress required to undergo a psych evaluation before assuming office?”  If not, they should be because I really don’t believe that anyone who sits there and says abortion rights supporters are all satanists is a sane person.

And I damn sure don’t believe they should be a member of the United States Congress.  But unfortunately talk like this actually makes these individuals even more popular with conservatives.

Which goes to show you exactly what kind of country they really want to turn the United States into.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • John Schmitt

    He reminds me of Lennie from “Of Mice and Men.” Only if it could end the same.

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      great movie,,,,,,,, chaney was awesome

  • Karen Airheart Lester

    I’m no fan of Ted Cruz but the Dallas Morning News stated that Ted said protestors said “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies during a heated protest at the Texas Capitol. That’s just a little different than your headline implies…. Your headline makes it sound like he is saying all pro-choicers are followers of Satan. This sounds like a story Faux News would run….

    • Kovah88

      They did chant that, but it was tongue in cheek, as a parody of the idea that Christian Conservatives seem to think that anyone who supports choice is a devil worshiper.

      • Dave

        Maybe they were listening to Merciful Fate.

  • Constitutional Idiocy

    You do realize that nothing you mentioned was ever an amendment to the constitution, right? And you do realize that the power of judicial review was never a power given to the supreme court by the constitution… or was never amended to give them that power, right?

    • Edward Krebbs

      Using your same argument, I could try a 5th amendment tax return followed by a court trial arguing that income tax isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution. However, I have no question where I would be after that.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        ( see: Wesley snipes)

    • Grumpmaster_Zz

      You are right, judicial review was never included as an Amendment. Why? Because it is an implied power contained in the MAIN BODY of the Constitution, derived from combining Article III and VI. Read Marbury v Madison. Learn it, love it. Just like separation of church and state is an implicit doctrine, not an explicit one. And the implication of the XIVth Amendment causes severe restrictions on the Xth – states CANNOT write laws that deny equal protection of the law.

  • republic84

    Abortion is something Ted Cruz’ mom should have practiced… I’d love to see the skeletons in his closet.

    • polliwogg

      Teddy’s mom should have swallowed.

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        and dies from ingesting him?????
        she isn’t stupid; just really bad taste in men ( look at her hubby)

    • moe/larry & curly keys

      they all speak Cuban spanish

      • vinman043

        Cuban Spanish? Is that anything like Canadian English?

      • moe/larry & curly keys

        well; that’s a great inquiry!!
        im still trying to decipher Louisiana ( and much of deeeeep south ) english

      • Paul Julian Gould

        More like South Boston English, but enunciated better /*chuckle*/

        It’s not spoken quite as fast as the dialect of Spanish spoken here in the Chihuahua desert… Mexican Spanish has borrowings from whichever First Nation tribe was in the locale… Cuban Spanish is more akin to to its Castilian parent tongue, and the borrowings are more from the West African languages spoken by the folks who were involuntarily imported and enslaved to work the sugar plantations.

  • Larry Thedishguy Blake

    If a fetus is so valuable that it’s worth more than its mother, then it’s worth a million times more than this abomination of a senator.

    • Kim Serrahn

      As they have said many times. They are neither pro-choice or pro-life they are only pro-themselves.

    • auntielib

      Have you heard the news? Chelsea Clinton has a fetus on the way.
      Oh, wait, except neither she nor anyone else in the liberal media refers to it as a “fetus” in THAT instance. No, now all of a sudden it’s “a baby” she is carrying inside her.
      Liberal “logic”, on display.

    • plusaf

      So, Cruz, where’s your legislation to support every newborn whose mom would have chosen abortion… from birth through, say, grad school… ALL expenses…
      Put your money where your fool mouth is.

  • Edward Krebbs

    What about the irony of insisting pro-abortion folks disrupt their opponents by chanting anything – yet, conveniently forgetting how the early gameplan of right wing (including the Tea Baggers who Cruz holds so dear) was to disrupt town hall meetings by yelling.

    I witnessed many a town hall disrupted by the right wing yelling and saw many videos of the same. Yet, I can’t remember any pro-abortion meeting disrupted by “Hail Satan.”

    • polliwogg

      There is no……….such……….thing as a “pro-abortion” folk.

      • Paul Julian Gould

        I’ve actually “met” a few folks online that made noises in that direction, though I suspect it was hyperbole.

        One might as well say folks are “pro-lung removal” for recognizing that there are unfortunate instances where that particular procedure is necessary… But we share citizenship with so many that seem to not understand anything more nuanced than a bumper-sticker, so there is that.

    • plusaf

      Ah, MANY years ago, when I was a member of a local Humanist group, the group decided to show the video “A Silent Scream” AND a video critique of it, at our monthly public meeting.
      There were about a dozen members and a dozen obviously pro-life folks in the audience.
      As the Silent Scream ran, there was dead silence in the room, but as soon as the critique video started, the grunts, coughs, vocal interjections of disgust, etc., from the dozen or so ‘guests’ made it virtually impossible to hear the second video.
      I considered asking the hosts to stop the playback and ask the guests to tone it down, but I was also afraid of potential damage to my car before I could get it out of the parking lot.
      That’s just another form of bigotry and censorship, and I’ll never forget those actions of such “fine, upstanding members of the community.” [not!]

    • george bennett

      It could be prudent to take note of the automobile license tags of strangers attending town hall meetings and causing disruptions and disturbances to protest legal abortion. Leave a note informing them that they are being identified and the information will be given to local police in the event of damage to nearby abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood facilities or attacks on medical personnel . Public protests are legal of course but not to the point where they cause fear or harm to people or property.

  • PRIME79

    These people are lunatics.

  • Buddah Dave

    Hmm death cult eh? Totally unlike worshipping a some poor shmuck who got crucified and wanting to die because this world is ‘evil’…

  • Rodney Lester

    As a Texan, I want to apologize that my screwed up state gave you Ted Cruz. I promise you that I did not vote for him.

    • LL11

      LOL. I said the same thing about Bush whenever I traveled during his administration. I had an Australian girl I was talking to on a bus in Budapest tell me, “with all the Americans I meet while traveling, ALL of them say they didn’t vote for him. Who did?” I laughed and said I don’t think those people travel, they think America is ‘number 1’ and don’t like foreigners.

    • You can make it up to me and help get your folks out to vote come midterms

      • meatwad_SSuppet

        Make it up to the nation, no, the world.

  • NativeSon

    Evil men with evil intentions.

  • Rony Fachry

    Kinda like the FPI trying to turn Indonesia into a Islamic nation based on Syari’a law. Very annoying.

    • george bennett

      Catholic Church law seems to be in a period of turmoil of late as The Vatican is contemplating a return to using Latin and The American Catholic Churches are in turmoil as they attempt to find ways to fit Roman Numerals on Bingo Cards.

  • Melanie Collins Pennock

    I would personally never have an abortion. That said, it is not my right to decide that for anyone else. When Ted Cruz is able to have one, he should speak up. Otherwise, he should keep his hating, lying mouth shut!

    • Old Woman

      Melanie, thank you. That is the epitome of choice – you make your own choice. Thank you, thank you, thank you for being rational.

      • Melanie Collins Pennock

        Yes, it is all about choice, isn’t it? Simple, really.
        Your welcome!!

    • auntielib

      I would never personally string up a colored person from a tree limb, or beat some homosexual senseless. That said, it is not my right to decide that for anyone else.
      Liberal “logic”, on display.

      • Melanie Collins Pennock

        Apples and oranges! “Colored” person?! Outrageous!

      • Look at this person’s avatar. That tells you all you need to know.

        That, and their making absolutely no sense, of course.

      • auntielib

        Look at YOUR avatar! A person who apparently feels he or she only has the IQ of a cat.

      • Melanie Collins Pennock

        Go post on a site that is not about going forward. You would prefer to g backwards.

      • auntielib

        Melanie, it’s sure good to know that Progressives such as you feel the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the “NAACP” to ignorant Progressives) is “outrageous”.

        Or is Melanie one of those bigoted Progressives who feels it’s OK for one person or group to use a particular word or phrase, but it is “outrageous” for some other person or group to use that particular word or phrase??

  • element_88

    I guess you missed the video where pro choice advocates literally chanted “hail Satan”? That’s onviously what he was talking about. Perhaps a little research is In order for you.

    1. The government has no right to be involved with marriage at all.

    2. The affordable care act was ruled constitutional based off of the fact that the court embarrassed Barack Obama by saying it was a tax and not a penalty. So hilariously, the law as the President promoted it would have been unconstitutional. Not to mention it passed without a single (R) vote.

    • Not to mention it passed without a single (R) vote.

      So? It still passed.

      Obviouisly, since then Republicans have decided that the phrase “Senate 60-vote majority” doesn’t mean what the Constitution/Senate rules says it means.

    • Meadows

      I guess you missed the part where the one girl (yes, it was literally one girl) said it in a mocking tone to the camera. She was clearly trying to get these conservative Christians’ goats, but pretty sure she isn’t an ACTUAL practicing Satanist. And even if she were, she wouldn’t represent 99.99999% of the pro-choice side, just as racist, homophobic rednecks don’t necessarily make up the whole of the Republican Party. But nice try.

  • Gabriel Gentile

    No, no, Ted… We say “Hail SATIN!”
    We’re just expressing our appreciation for fine fabrics, you silly goose!

  • MLR

    Yes having these nut jobs in the U.S. Senate is a very scary thing and I worry that left and center is going to make the same mistake in 2014 that was done in 2010 and not get out and vote. That means that more of these morons will be voted in and there goes the nation. I personally don’t give a f***k what Ted Cruz thinks, so if he wants to call me a satanist for believing in choice so what? I think he’s the devil’s spawn so we’re even. What does worry me though is if more people like him get elected God only knows what draconian laws they’ll pass. I really believe these idiots will set us back 50 yrs or more. So sane people, please get out and vote because the lunatics sure are.

    • Scaramongus

      I wouldn’t care what he says about me, or anyone in particular, except he is part of the body that makes decisions for us all and apparently there are enough other wackos that agree with his ideas that he was elected!!!!

  • John Spriggs

    He is nothing but a commie who was born in Canada look at his birth certificate his dadddy was a commie who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar an ran away

  • jillbilly68

    I am pro-choice…most of my friends are pro-choice. I don’t condone abortion nor would I ever want someone be in a situation where they would have to choose…but I do support a woman’s choice. But, I choose to focus more on young men and women’s self esteem and getting them to think about choices before they make mistakes and feel the need to have to make this choice. I can almost guarantee every single woman who has had an abortion did not make the choice in vain. But the far right don’t care about those people.
    I’m so tired of this subject being an issue and part of the republican platform. They don’t want abortion, yet they don’t want to treat woman as equals or give us rights to our own bodies or promote safe sex in schools or even discuss the idea that they’re having sex….Noooo, they promote abstinence (doubtful they practice what they preach) and the virgin ring, the ritual of fathers giving daughters a ring and the daughter declaring her vow of chastity until marriage. It’s sick.

  • Susan

    ….And if they did shout “Hail, Satan”! It was their constitutional right.

    “Hail, Satan!”
    “Hail, Satan!”

  • DixieMike

    This Republican Party is fully in dangerous and frightening territory. Other Republicans need to rein them in. Only they can do it. Liberals have zero control over them now. This is Crazyland now.

  • Steve Z

    Hail Satan!

  • .
    It doesn’t matter as much if it’s Constitutional, as slavery was once Constitutional, and we tend to think of slave owners as hateful bigots.

    The most important thing is equivalent consideration and inclusiveness.

    I hope the Constitution will eventually advance to give everyone equivalent consideration and inclusiveness, but we aren’t there yet, especially with the Morons, er Mormons fighting the ERA Equal Rights Amendment to death.

    But we will get there.

    On the way, we need to fight the good fight against hateful bigots wherever we may find them, and Ted Cruz is, sadly, very effective at at being a hateful bigot, effectively firing Federal workers for a couple of weeks (mostly undeserving blacks and women in the minds of rabid conservatives and libertarians, unworthy bureaucratic freeloaders looking for a handout) — and he not only hungers to do it again, but do it permanently, freeing Wall Street and big corporations to thrive unregulated, and harvest the US population at will.

    Anybody help us!

    • Katherine7

      Why is it that you resort to name-calling about Mormons?

      • .

        Hi Katherine7,

        “… Why is it that you resort to name-calling about Mormons? …”

        Earlier, Peter wrote,

        “… Morons, er Mormons fighting the ERA Equal Rights Amendment to death …”

        … and that “Morons” is an earned insult for their insult to women and the population and culture in general.

        But I think you know I meant it that way.

        Background, let’s explore the history of the word and see if the behavior of the Mormons killing the ERA shows up anywhere:

        moron (n.)
        1910, medical Latin, from Greek (Attic) moron, neuter of moros “foolish, dull, sluggish, stupid,” probably cognate with Sanskrit murah “idiotic.”
        Latin morus “foolish” is a loan-word from Greek.
        Adopted by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded with a technical definition “adult with a mental age between 8 and 12;” used as an insult since 1922 and subsequently dropped from technical use.
        Linnæus had introduced morisis “idiocy.”

        “… The feeble-minded may be divided into:

        (1) Those who are totally arrested before the age of three so that they show the attainment of a two-year-old child or less; these are the idiots.

        (2) Those so retarded that they become permanently arrested between the ages of three and seven; these are imbeciles.

        (3) Those so retarded that they become arrested between the ages of seven and twelve; these were formerly called feeble-minded, the same term that is applied to the whole group.

        We are now proposing to call them morons, this word being the Greek for “fool.”

        The English word “fool” as formerly used describes exactly this grade of child–one who is deficient in judgment or sense …”

        — Henry H. Goddard, in Journal of Proceedings and Addresses” of the National Education Association of the United States, July 1910



  • Nancy O’Neal

    If Ted Cruz would turn into an entirely different human being I could see myself maybe liking him.

  • Katherine7

    There are so many things wrong with this article that I don’t know where to begin.

    First of all, there are reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that don’t concern religion at all.

    Second of all, there IS video footage that shows those pro-choicers chanting “Hail Satan.” Ted Cruz was not accusing them of anything they weren’t accusing themselves of. In fact, he didn’t outright accuse them of anything.

    Also, you talk about the Constitutionally protected right of abortion since Roe v Wade. Are you saying that something morally sanctioned because our govt made it legal? If so, that is deeply problematic. History is replete with governments violating basic human dignities, but it was all good ‘cuz it was legal. Slavery, anyone? Do NOT say something is okay because it is legally sanctioned by the Judicial branch.
    Our Supreme Court has gotten it wrong sooooooo many times before. It is hardly credible.

    You say that women who have abortions should have control over their own bodies. I agree people should have control over their own bodies. The problem is that a pregnant woman is carrying a DIFFERENT body.

    Let’s say a woman is pregnant with a boy. A boy has a certain organ that she does not. So if she aborts, is that her body? It is absolutely NOT.

    You are making a huge strawman argument about Senator Cruz. It’s not accurate in the least.

    • .


      “… First of all, there are reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that don’t concern religion at all …”


      Do tell.

      “… women who have abortions should have control over their own bodies … The problem is that a pregnant woman is carrying a DIFFERENT body …”

      Agreed 1,000%.

      The problem is when anyone else claims superior jurisdiction inside someone else’s body.

      It’s the woman’s decision, not the states or any man’s, including her husband.

      So, you should be talking to men and women who create unwanted pregnancies, and the women who carry them, not to legislators who inappropriately deal with the legality of abortion — the inside of anyone’s body is outside their jurisdiction.


      “… say a woman is pregnant with a boy. A boy has a certain organ that she does not. So if she aborts, is that her body? It is absolutely NOT …”

      Are you saying a woman can abort a female fetus because the parts are the same as the woman’s (and a man can abort a male fetus if a man could get pregnant?)?

      I don’t get your purpose in identifying a boy only as having different parts.

      Surely, any fetus has different parts from the host mother — we’re not talking cloning here.

      And, you are aware that we are all women, and that men are just broken women, right?

      A boy fetus is a girl fetus that is broken, not with something “extra”.

      Or is science and reality not important here?

      • Katherine7

        The main reason I oppose same-sex marriage is because of the infringing upon the rights of religious people. This is already happening, and its frightening… There are other non-religious reasons to oppose as well. I won’t get into these here so I can cover the other stuff.

        So a person only has rights when they are outside a body? Rights depend on location? That is asinine. There is great consensus in the medical community that life begins at conception. And that’s when rights begin also.

        The reason I brought up the boy was to illustrate that a fetus is NOT a woman’s body. Your point about broken fetuses really makes no sense at all.

        “is science and reality not important here?” That’s a red herring, and you’ve provided nothing consistent with science.

      • .
        Hi Katherine7,

        How does gay marriage infringe on the rights of religious people, especially when gays themselves are religious people, and there are hundreds of gay affirming religious communities, including gay ministers and gay marriage support?

        The terms “gay” and “religious” are not mutually exclusive.

        I said a fetus inside a woman’s body is outside the jurisdiction of the state legislature, I did not say the fetus has no rights.

        I was directing your energies to the authority in charge of those rights — the woman, not to the state legislature (Ted Cruz et al).

        Zygotes to fetuses take weeks to differentiate male or not (female).

        I have no idea why you think the presence of a penis is important unless you believe the absence of a penis is important.

        Hence my wondering if you feel aborting female fetuses is not worthy of discussion because that is the woman herself, not a different life.


        I believe we develop a deeper understanding of any subject through these dialogs, hence by back and forth questioning.

        If you are exploring your presentations, and one fails on me, evolve it or write me off, but I appreciate the opportunity to review your ideas regardless, and I look forward to more.

      • Katherine7

        I expressed the reason I brought up the male organ: to make it clear that it is NOT the woman’s body. Of course a male and female are of equal importance. It was simply to clarify for those who argue that women have the right to make choices about “their own bodies.” It seems that you and I agree on this, so best to leave that point from here on out.

        There is absolutely no reason why a fetus should be outside of the state jurisdiction. The purpose of law is to protect rights. A fetus has rights, and the laws must protect those rights. Thankfully, more and more pro-life laws are being passed around the country in order to protect the lives of unborn children.

        Rights of religious people who oppose gay marriage are being threatened. A photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding was arrested. A few other people in the wedding industry have gotten in trouble with the law because they chose not to serve a gay wedding. And they should NOT be expected to drop their religious scruples at the door. The first amendment was written to protect against that very thing. A person can refuse to do business with anyone for any reason; and for these specific folks, it had to do with their religious beliefs.

      • Unfortunately, the case I believe you are referring to took place in New Mexico, where there is a specific amendment to the state constitution making it illegal for a business to refuse service to a same-sex couple. So the photographer broke the law; when you have a public business, you have to serve ALL members of the public. Period. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, thus letting the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision stand.
        You ever heard of the Civil Rights Act? This issue was settled 50 years ago. Can Woolworth’s, or any business, refuse to serve African-Americans today? No.

      • Katherine7

        This is very, very different from the Civil Rights issue. Parts of Jim Crow MANDATED racial separation. This law essentially refuses to let someone choose for themselves whether to serve someone or not..

        You simply cannot mandate a person to do business with someone else. If you listen to some of the testimony of the baker in Colorado, he said he would be more than willing to serve cookies, brownies, a birthday cake, etc. to a gay person. But he didn’t want to do wedding cakes because he felt that would be participating in a gay wedding, and he wasn’t comfortable with that.

        Nothing trumps the 1st amendment. Nothing trumps freedom of religion. There is no “right” to a wedding cake. Or a photo shoot. There are PLENTY of businesses that would offer a service.

        There is no “right to buy.” There are PLENTY of reasons why someone would refuse service. Their shop is closed, or they’ve run out of supplies, or they are overbooked. In the end, though, it doesn’t matter. A person can refuse service to another person for any reason. If that really is a law in New Mexico, it is asinine and, in this case, violated the first amendment.

      • There is also no “right” to have a business. To serve the public, the business owner must conform to the relevant rules and regulations. If, as in New Mexico, that means the business owner has to serve everyone who walks in his/her door (unless the person is being abusive)…well, that’s just the way it is. You do have a choice, you know…if you can’t serve gay people the same as you serve hetero people, then you can just not be in business.

        Also, gay rights are human rights are civil rights. There’s no difference.

        “There are PLENTY of reasons why someone would refuse service. Their shop is closed, or they’ve run out of supplies, or they are overbooked.”

        Oh, bullshit. Those “reasons” have nothing to do with discriminating against people, which is what we’re talking about. For that matter, if the photographer in New Mexico had used one of those reasons, and not shot her mouth off about the potential client being one of a lesbian couple, probably nothing would have come of it. But instead of simply saying, “I’m sorry, I’m overbooked and I can recommend another photographer,” she HAD to say the reason she wouldn’t take the job is because she doesn’t photograph gay couples. Which if course opened up the whole illegal can of worms in the first place.

        My state of Arizona just tried to pass a law saying businesses could refuse service to gay people. The governor vetoed it. You know why? Because the business community came down on the Legislature’s heads, because they knew all the boycotts (and lawsuits, and bad publicity) that would follow would just about wreck the state. Not to mention that such a law, and the ridiculousness you’re suggesting, is out-and-out discrimination.

        By the way, I’m a person of faith. But I was taught that I have to a) follow the laws, as Jesus and Paul commanded; and b) the world is under no obligation to conform to my beliefs. If I have a business and don’t feel like I can serve gay people, then I shouldn’t be in business.

      • .


        Of course there are reasons a fetus may be considered outside the state’s jurisdiction.

        You may not like or agree, but there are reasons.

        I’ve gotten traffic tickets that the judge threw out because they were outside their jurisdiction, even though I probably was speeding.

        Inside another human being is their own jurisdiction — a person always has superior rights over their own body (and anything inside that jurisdiction).

        No one is a ward of the state, the property of the state — the state never has superior rights over one’s own body (not since slavery, anyways).

        I appreciate that you believe that from the moment of fertilization / conception that there is a second, separate entity with it’s own separate rights.

        I agree about a second entity, but I disagree about it’s separateness.

        There is no evidence that that entity exists separate for months.

        There is no evidence that that entity leaves the mother’s sole jurisdiction for months.

        In the intervening months at least, for the state to insert itself, so to speak, into the woman’s personal, private jurisdiction over her own body, choices, and destiny is unwarranted, and unconstitutional for a reason.

        Otherwise we have women as state mandated second class citizens, subject to subordinate jurisdiction on demand — that if a man can get you pregnant, then the state will force you to carry that pregnancy to term.


        Is there a way to resolve this to everyone’s satisfaction?

        Yes, men, keep it in your pants — no more unwanted sex and no more unwanted pregnancies.


        Well, aside from also not having wanted sex, or unwanted sex if possible, that leads to unwanted pregnancies, how about ready access to effective pregnancy prevention resources first?

        Oh, that’s one of we the people’s compromise offerings, and demands in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act … a service that some religious folk seem to want to fight … because they believe:

        … that if a man can get a woman pregnant, then they want the state to force that woman to bring that pregnancy to term.


        Welcome to the nightmare of women as second class citizens, mere vessels to the superiority of men’s on-demand sexual and reproductive whims, permission not required.

        Youch, youch, youch!

        (Dare I mention the ready access to early term abortion as a woman’s constitutionally protected right?)

      • george bennett

        I cannot fathom the reasoning of the evangelical conservative GOP voters who in 2008 supported Mr. Romney. The man was involved in the operation of Stericycle, a company in the fold of Bain Capital which acquires aborted fetuses from abortion clinics and vends them to cosmetics manufacturers for processing as a product. Both abortion and processing of an aborted fetus are legal. Advice on a legal abortion given by Planned Parenthood is legal. Proffering that a rape is legitimate or illegitimate based on a political position is a fantasy entertained by the GOP in its’ party platform. The GOP now seems to be selecting candidates for the Presidency from a list compiled from the works of Lewis Carroll.

      • george bennett

        Americans, and in fact the World had better begin controlling its population expansions. Food production expands arithmetically while populations expand geometrically. We are entering a time when fresh water sources are less sustainable and shortages are occurring NOW. The air and water pollution from burning fossil fuels is going out of control and the polluters are denying what is now evident as the climate changes more rapidly. The United States has allowed the uncontrolled storage of nuclear waste materials which will continue to emit radiation for thousands of years in some instances. We need not fear a collision with an asteroid ending life on Earth, our impact on the planet will prove sufficient to destroy it if we don’t change. Some theorists have announced that it may be, or is too late right NOW.

  • Victor Manuel Guerra

    Man this guy gives me the creeps, reminds me of a con-man snake oil saleman!
    Ted Cruz hope they vote him out really soon tired of seeing his face!

  • auntielib

    “Well, during a speech for the Susan B. Anthony List (an anti-abortion group) Ted Cruz said that those who support abortion rights chant, “Hail, Satan!” to silence their enemies.”
    Well, yes, and as it turns out, Senator Cruz was correct. So Mr. Clifton begins his mindless rant.
    And Mr. Clifton’s opinion piece went even further downhill from there.

  • Melanie Collins Pennock

    If anyone is interested, I will no longer feed Trolls! I define Trolls as people who go trolling around on sites with which they have differing opinions looking for a fight! Namaste.

  • Pat

    Anti-abortion is anti-woman.

  • Multnomah

    Rodney Lester, get out and stir up the vote for someone else, anyone else this Cruz is full of BS.