Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Update on the racist beatdown of Tasha Hill at Georgia Cracker Barrel by Troy Dale West Previous entry: GA: white man beats down black woman in front of her child at Cracker Barrel

The Cracker Taliban saves the boob babies

First they came for abortion, then they came for contraception, then they attacked HPV vaccination, and now they’re coming for mammograms.  I’ve long figured this was the direction that the anti-choice movement is heading, but watching it unfold is like watching a snail try to cross a football field.  Working up the bullshit excuse and the courage to expand their opposition to health care for women—-at least that addressing our the parts that make us not-men and therefore are too disgusting to be considered, much less exposed to medical examination—-takes these cowards and morons a long fucking time.

Say what you will about the actual Taliban, but at least they cut to the chase.  One all-purpose excuse for why women can’t see doctors—-because it’s immodest—-and they’re done.  They have their reason to deny women health care, and they don’t have to admit that it’s because the idea of fucking women up by proxy pleases them.  Modesty is an infinitely better excuse than “the babies” in terms of wrapping your excuse around the goal.  Anti-choicers chose “the babies” because it made their nuttiness more sympathetic, and seemed to be a more effective disguise for their misogyny.  But they’re trading coherence for sympathy.  Every new incursion into agitating against ladyparts health care must be related somehow to saving embryos, fetuses, or potential ones, which is why the argument against contraception isn’t a straightforward, “We want you to be punished for fucking,” but, “Condoms create a ‘contraceptive mentality’ that leads to abortion.” 

The tortured reasoning in play here is this: The Susan G. Komen Foundation is offensive, because they a) don’t “admit” to a connection between breast cancer and abortion that doesn’t exist and b) they give money to Planned Parenthood so they can pay for mammograms for lower income women. But as we all know, Planned Parenthood is in the “abortion industry”—-Ross Douthat told me so!—-and so it’s not possible that they’re actually providing mammograms with the mammogram money.  For all we know, there is no such thing as a “mammogram”.  It’s probably just another, more gruesome way to perform abortions.

Let’s face it: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood are conspiring to cover up the fact that women are now growing babies in their boobs.  And these “mammograms” are simply an attempt to abort those precious little babies by squishing them. 

I know what you’re thinking: if women could grow babies in their breasts, wouldn’t we have figured this out already?  Human being have been having babies for 4,000 years now, longer if you’re a heathen who believes in evolution.

There’s a simple answer to your question: Babies grow in boobies because women swallow semen, duh.  If you were having sex the normal way, you’d get babies in the normal lower ladypart region.  But now these young girls these days think it’s fine to have a man ejaculate in their mouths, and sometimes that means they pay the consequence of boob-babies.  It makes perfect sense.  That’s roughly where your throat ends, isn’t it?  A man’s Jesus spooge has to go somewhere, doesn’t it?  Boobs are the only logical place. 

The means that the existence of boob-babies can be traced back to 1997, when Bill Clinton invented the blow job. And since he’s so pro-abort, you know he immediately enlisted Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen to cover up the consequences of his terrible discovery.  And only now is the truth coming out. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:40 PM • (50) Comments

If you were having sex the normal way, you’d get babies in the normal lower ladypart region.  But now these young girls these days think it’s fine to have a man ejaculate in their mouths, and sometimes that means they pay the consequence of boob-babies.  It makes perfect sense.  That’s roughly where your throat ends, isn’t it?  A man’s Jesus spooge has to go somewhere, doesn’t it?  Boobs are the only logical place.

Woah, woah.  Slow down Amanda.  I’m pretty sure it was established a couple of weeks ago that to splodge on a woman’s face was de facto misogyny which means, by extension, that the anti-woman right would be for it.  Now tonsil semen is liberal and feminist?  I’m sorry, but this explanation doesn’t hold water.

And I’m going to have to do some research on that “babies grow in boobies” thing, because I’m fairly suspicious of that claim as well.

/snark

Comment #1: Zifnab  on  09/16  at  06:25 PM

There’s a simple answer to your question: Babies grow in boobies because women swallow semen, duh.  If you were having sex the normal way, you’d get babies in the normal lower ladypart region.

I just passed Mtn Dew through my nose

Comment #2: John Rove  on  09/16  at  06:26 PM

Next up from the forced-birthers: Why won’t the media report our findings that exposing any womanly flesh to the sun causes ladies to spontaneously abort womb-babies, even if they aren’t pregnant yet!?!  It’s not that we want to oppress women by forcing them to wear a hijab or be stoned to death, it’s just the only way to protect the snowflake babies!

Comment #3: Jrod  on  09/16  at  06:29 PM

@John Rove I shudder to think of what kind of babies you aborted in doing so.

Comment #4: Bryce  on  09/16  at  06:31 PM

I used to work for the American Cancer Society, and I got a call once from an angry anti-choicer demanding to know why we didn’t play up the link between abortion and breast cancer.  I gave the official response, explaining the methodological problems with the studies purporting to show a link, and she told me that if ACS wasn’t officially against abortion, then she would never give us money again.  She was really furious.  The fact that ACS doesn’t give a rat’s fart for anything not directly cancer-related was lost on her.  This was in late 2005 or early 2006, so at least Reason A above is nothing new.

Really, it’s the same strategy, used over and over again.  “Our position is the only morally defensible one.  It’s so morally defensible that we’re going to lie to support it.  And if you won’t support our lies, you’re obviously an evil person.”  They use it for health care and foreign policy and everything else; why should this be any different?

Comment #5: burgundy  on  09/16  at  06:47 PM

Amanda, the problem with this post is that it makes roughly 242% more sense than anything the right wing comes up with, has ever come up or will ever come up with. Your kindergarten anatomy could go any number of rounds with their “intelligent design”. Your flawless logic and armored-link chains of causality would easily convince not just the wingers, but their deities as well. Basically I think your job offer from the WashingtonPost-FocusOntheFamily-HeritageFoundation is on its merry way to you. Use your powers for good or entertainment, I don’t care, I’m making babies with my boobies.

Comment #6: CassieC  on  09/16  at  06:49 PM

Abortion, performed as a normal medical prodecure, is far safer than childbirth. Always has been, probably always will be. All the handwaving over phantom cancer links and imaginary psychological problems will never change that simple fact.

Comment #7: Bitter Scribe  on  09/16  at  06:52 PM

“Honey!”

“Remember how you wanted to be pregnant? Guess what I learned today and what you get to do!!1!!one!”

Comment #8: paleotectonics  on  09/16  at  06:59 PM

There’s a simple answer to your question: Babies grow in boobies because women swallow semen, duh.  If you were having sex the normal way, you’d get babies in the normal lower ladypart region.

Hmm - does that mean I have to worry about having had children born from toothcups by the sides of beds, now?

From the website:

First: the recession (or, “the recession”) has not spared Operation Rescue (O.R.). As the AP reports, the Witchita-based group itself—already roiled by infighting—says that “it’s close to shutting down unless emergency financial help arrives soon.”

I have offered to help Operation Rescue by putting them in touch with a Nigerian businessman who needs some help from someone with an American bank account.  We’ll see how that goes.

Comment #9: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/16  at  07:03 PM

Are you trying to make my heas explode with all the cute kitten pictures?

Comment #10: kitten parade  on  09/16  at  07:16 PM

oops I mean *head* .  See kitten, can’t type.

Comment #11: kitten parade  on  09/16  at  07:17 PM

OT, but I had those same sandals, and my equally adorable Aussie cattle dog subjected them to masticatory atomization.

Comment #12: Tommy Deelite  on  09/16  at  07:24 PM

And that leg in the picture must belong to a feminazi because it’s unshaved!!!11!

Making boob babies through semen in the mouth. Not just for breakfast anymore.

What’s next? Assbabies? No more rectal exams for women, too?  I’m sure they will find a way to link female rectal cancer with sex, and lobby against funding for this procedure too.

Comment #13: Kathy  on  09/16  at  07:44 PM

And here I thought we’d been having babies for 6,000 years, not just 4,000.  Did I miss something?

P.S.  You really do need a spew alert when you go all out, you know.

Comment #14: Gnome de Plume  on  09/16  at  07:54 PM

Shush, don’t tell anyone, but anal cancer is caused by sex.  I hesitate to point this out, because I don’t want to give the nuts any more ammo, but anal cancer, like cervical cancer, is linked to HPV you get through anal sex.  No shame in that, in my opinion, and more importantly, equally preventable with the HPV vaccine.  All the more reason we should be glad they’re moving to approve it for boys, because while men can’t get cervical cancer, they can get anal cancer.  Perhaps Farrah Fawcet’s untimely death will bring some much-needed understanding of this disease.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  07:58 PM

I blamed my steadily growing man-boobs on middle! Now I know I am pregnant.

Comment #16: TikiHead  on  09/16  at  08:21 PM

er “middle age”

Comment #17: TikiHead  on  09/16  at  08:21 PM

I blame my constant typos on boob-pregnancy!

Comment #18: TikiHead  on  09/16  at  08:24 PM

You know, I wonder how many Republicans own, or are on the boards of, corporations that routinely package their stuff in pink-pink-pink for the month of October.

I’m guessing that not all Breast-Cancer-Month-benefitin’ companies are owned by liberals.

THOSE are the people who need to turn to the crazy women-hating faction of their party and say, Whoa, wait a fucking minute.  Mammograms save lives.  Planned Parenthood makes this possible for women who might not otherwise be screened.  Back the hell off.

It really is high time the right examined its lunatic fundie fringe, because they’re not really “fringe” any more—they have taken over.  Surely there are some reasonable Republicans aware of the fact that half of the country is female?

Comment #19: litbrit  on  09/16  at  08:42 PM

I would think that the wingers would be satisfied with the fact that for many women mammograms are incredibly painful (because you have to squeeze the breast tissue flat to get an easily-read image). There’s some kind of humanitarian award awaiting anyone who can invent a cheap CT scanner for mammography.

With the planned parenthood thing it’s really amazing how many counterfactuals the right wing has to pile on top of each other to get the more-dead-women result they want.

Comment #20: paul  on  09/16  at  08:53 PM

What’s next? Assbabies?

Well, that does explain their opposition to teh homosex. They’re just trying to prevent gayassbortions.

(Also, “Cracker Taliban” is pretty much the best name for these people ever. :D)

Comment #21: Bagelsan  on  09/16  at  08:59 PM

If you have to abort an ass baby, then James Dobson’s head will roll right off his shoulders.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/16  at  09:23 PM

So it’s just semen-related sex that makes tit and ass babies, right? Because it’s sperm that have souls? (How grotesquely wasteful, since there are so many more sperm than eggs, and most sperm have to die for one to live.) I would like to know that I’m not going to start needing a mouth-diaphragm.

Comment #23: junk science  on  09/16  at  09:36 PM

What’s next? Assbabies?

Like, where do you think wingnut pundits come from?

I blame my typos on Tikihead’s boob-pregnancy too.

Comment #24: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/16  at  09:38 PM

burgundy, I have been informed by a rabid pro-lifer that the American Cancer Society has a known liberal bias.  As does the National Institute of Health, Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic.  Trying to argue with these folks is futile and painful.  All science has a liberal bias except the bits they use to try to argue their own point of view.

Comment #25: BadKitty  on  09/16  at  09:38 PM

OK, so I’ve never swallowed but was getting manboobs at one point. I’ve lost wait, and the boobs, but what exactly was I getting rid of? If I aborted and didn’t know it I’m gonna be PISSED! I DIDN’T GET MY ABORTION PARTY!

Comment #26: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  09/16  at  09:45 PM

What do these idiots think? That mammogram providers are going to try “upsell” women? “Oh, you are getting a mammogram? Well, you know, we are having a 2 for 1 special right now; a free abortion for every mammogram!” Also, when women usually start getting mammograms, aren’t they usually finished with having babies? I mean, mammograms aren’t usually recommended until women reach the age of 40, right? WTF?

Comment #27: Nikkole318  on  09/16  at  10:30 PM

Except when they come out of the (bodily) diaphragm area as Illegal Alien Babies, like they did in Alien, Aliens, and Ai Caramba Yet More Aliens. I liked how in the third one, one of the spawn burst out wearing a contraceptive diaphragm as a gang-hat purely for its Fuck You factor.

Comment #28: CassandraLiberal  on  09/16  at  10:36 PM

As usual, my brilliant friend Brian has come up with the solution: The antis boycott you if you don’t mention the abortion connection. If everyone stops mentioning it, then the antis have to boycott everyone, leaving them to, in essence, “go Galt” and move to some remote island and ultimately die out because they realize they failed to bring an adequately trained physician. It’s a totally brilliant plan!

In other news - I’ve been told that my breast tissue is too dense for a mammogram. If I get an ultrasound instead, is there a chance that it could mutate my boob babies?

Comment #29: ACG  on  09/16  at  10:47 PM

This is weird.  I never heard of Komen before recently.  Just this past Sunday I did the race for the cure Komen event in Central Park, because a close friend of mine has a bad family history and this is very important to her. 

I wish I had known about this, I would have had even more fun.  I love sticking it to these motherfuckers.

Comment #30: JennyLI  on  09/16  at  11:05 PM

“Surely there are some reasonable Republicans aware of the fact that half of the country is female?”

...oh, they’re aware of that fact all right.  They are so traumatized by that fact they’ve been trying to reduce the percentage of females for decades/centuries…

Comment #31: MikeEss  on  09/16  at  11:09 PM

“Shush, don’t tell anyone, but anal cancer is caused by sex.  I hesitate to point this out, because I don’t want to give the nuts any more ammo, but anal cancer, like cervical cancer, is linked to HPV you get through anal sex.  No shame in that, in my opinion, and more importantly, equally preventable with the HPV vaccine”

I have to ask my doctor about this.  I think that at 44 I’m too old to get the vaccine.  I do get tested for HPV every year.

Comment #32: JennyLI  on  09/16  at  11:10 PM

If I get an ultrasound instead, is there a chance that it could mutate my boob babies?

Well, ultrasounds are used to check for belly babies, so I think you’re boob babies will be safe.

Comment #33: keshmeshi  on  09/17  at  01:17 AM

Komen money frees up PP money for other purposes.  That is why I don’t support Komen.

Comment #34: tomonthebay  on  09/17  at  01:17 AM

Tom @ 34

Piss off.

Thank you.

Comment #35: paleotectonics  on  09/17  at  01:21 AM

to be fair to Tom, it is true that generally one can’t support just part of n organization with donations. It’s why federal funding to church-run charities is also not cool - it frees up money to be pent on proselytizing.

That said, given the % of abortions PP provides relative to the total amount of services, it’s an exercise in callousness to protest Komen on those grounds. Does Tom screen every business that he frequents to make sure none of its employees donate to PP? I’m guessing the answer is no, because it would inconvenience him to have to live by his principles in that case. But causing women to die? Sure, he feels comfortable doing that for his principles…

Actually, that seems like a great campaign - encourage the crazies not to shop anywhere that won’t force its employees to disclose all their charitable donations for scrutiny. Pretty soon, they’ll all have to move to a little enclave somewhere and not bother the rest of us anymore.

Comment #36: jalmondale  on  09/17  at  01:45 AM

You know, I wonder how many Republicans own, or are on the boards of, corporations that routinely package their stuff in pink-pink-pink for the month of October.
I’m guessing that not all Breast-Cancer-Month-benefitin’ companies are owned by liberals.

oh, it’s even better than that, Susan G Komen for the Cure was founded by the wife of the founder of Chili’s restaurants, and they donate a fair bit of money to right wing think tanks.

Comment #37: jessilikewhoa  on  09/17  at  02:35 AM

In other news - I’ve been told that my breast tissue is too dense for a mammogram.

For Christ’s sake, DO NOT WEAR A PUSH-UP BRA!!!!

Those puppies might just go critical.

Comment #38: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/17  at  02:36 AM

In other news - I’ve been told that my breast tissue is too dense for a mammogram. If I get an ultrasound instead, is there a chance that it could mutate my boob babies?

You will still get the mammogram because they still want to torture your ass.  Trust me.  I have “too dense” breasts.  You get the mammogram, then you sit there and wait while they try to read it, then they bring you in a do an ultrasound. 

It won’t mutate your boob babies.  They just shove them out of the way with the wand.

Comment #39: speedbudget  on  09/17  at  08:11 AM

“Also, when women usually start getting mammograms, aren’t they usually finished with having babies? I mean, mammograms aren’t usually recommended until women reach the age of 40, right? WTF?”

Yeah, unless you have a condition or family history that indicates starting earlier.

“Komen money frees up PP money for other purposes.  That is why I don’t support Komen.”

Right on.  Suck it, people who need STD-testing, STD treatment, contraception, pap smears, sterilization, vaccinations, pregnancy tests, prenatal care, UTI treatment, and accurate sex ed!

Comment #40: preying mantis  on  09/17  at  08:12 AM

First they came for abortion, then they came for contraception, then they attacked HPV vaccination, and now they’re coming for mammograms.

... but I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a boob

Comment #41: atheist  on  09/17  at  09:56 AM

Well, ultrasounds are used to check for belly babies, so I think you’re boob babies will be safe.

Don’t they use ultrasound nowadays to do a second check on oddly suspicious lumps anyhow? Even if they’re found via mammogram . . .

I believe I’ve heard that mammogram is good for doing a gross overview of the breast, and ultrasound a targeted look at a possible problem. The reason they don’t use ultrasound for the gross overview (for most women) is that it (a) takes a lot longer to do a full scan and (b) costs a heck of a lot more. But it’s a more accurate tool.

Comment #42: hp  on  09/17  at  10:32 AM

I have to ask-  does the withdrawal method work at all for preventing boob-babies? And what about spitting- would that be like the old wives’ tale about douching after sex to get rid of the jebus-sperms? (Maybe if you gargle with an antiseptic mouthwash after?) We need answers!!!

Comment #43: TheRealistMom  on  09/17  at  11:13 AM

Oh noes, Planned Parenthood might have more money to offer more cancer screening and contraceptive services! That means women will be better off.  But thanks, tom.  I’m glad that while you don’t care about women’s lives, you don’t hate breasts per se.  Just the women they’re attached to.

Comment #44: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/17  at  11:14 AM

it is true that generally one can’t support just part of n organization with donations.

Actually, that’s not true.  Komen gives money to Planned Parenthood, who then use it strictly to expand mammogram services.  If the money wasn’t given, the cut would be to mammogram services.  Tom may convince himself that he can hurt women while saving precious breasts, but he can’t.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/17  at  11:17 AM

There’s some kind of humanitarian award awaiting anyone who can invent a cheap CT scanner for mammography.

Not going to happen until someone already rich decides to do it on their own.  The consumables are what drives Mamograms as a money maker for the M(edical)IC.

Comment #46: helen w. h.  on  09/17  at  01:05 PM

The reason they don’t use ultrasound for the gross overview (for most women) is that it (a) takes a lot longer to do a full scan and (b) costs a heck of a lot more.

Um, no.  They would cost more for initial capital equipment (maybe), but would not require the expensive consumables, like say film, those neat pads that make them not so excruciating (and for which many centers charge an additional fee).  Big companies who are in medical equipment routinely kill projects on this.  Ultrasound is used for some point follow ups because it is already available in the form that allows that so as to milk the prenatal medical equipment industry.

Comment #47: helen w. h.  on  09/17  at  01:13 PM

And here I thought we’d been having babies for 6,000 years, not just 4,000.  Did I miss something?

Gnome de Plume

No, for the first 2000 years they were begetting in sinless CHRISTIAN fashion similar to parthenogenesis, but without those nasty womanly bits involved.

You will still get the mammogram because they still want to torture your <strike>ass.</strike> boob babies.

speedbudget

There fixed it for you.

Comment #48: cynickal  on  09/17  at  02:16 PM

No, for the first 2000 years they were begetting in sinless CHRISTIAN fashion similar to parthenogenesis, but without those nasty womanly bits involved.

You mean sinless JEWISH fashion; Christ hadn’t shown up yet.  This probably explains why they were so pissed off at everyone else.

But why exactly would the Wholly Babble tell them to take their enemies daughters as sex slaves if there was no hanky-panky?

Comment #49: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/17  at  02:41 PM

So abstinence education will now include the instruction, “Suck, but don’t swallow.”

Comment #50: hbsweet, empress of ice cream  on  09/17  at  11:52 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.