Feminists claim to be all about choice, but as many women continue to choose to stay at home while their husband’s work, a practical, rewarding, reciprocal relationship that benefits every member of the family, they expose the true agenda of the concept of “women’s rights.”
You see, they don’t want women to choose their own path. They want women to take their preferred path far, far away from traditional womanhood.
And they absolutely can’t stand the fact that plenty of educated, empowered, intelligent, and independent women happily choose to stay home with their children.
Democratic candidate for Jeff Flake’s vacating Senate Seat, Kyrsten Sinema, has gotten slammed in the headlines lately for a series of highly controversial comments about the military, Republicans, and even her own constituents.
Now, a profanity-laced interview in which she cruelly disparaged stay-at-home moms has added to the list of contempt she holds for people who believe differently than she does.
The Daily Wire reports:
In a 2006 interview with the Scottsdale nightlife magazine 944, Sinema went off the rails when describing stay-at-home moms, blustering, “These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life. That’s bulls**t. I mean, what the f*** are we really talking about here?”
Sinema was married to a BYU classmate before later divorcing him. She has no children, and is a vehement abortion rights supporter. She co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act.
Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told the Senate Judiciary Committee of the “Women’s Health Protection Act”:
We find the formal title or marketing label, “Women’s Health Protection Act,” to be highly misleading. The bill is really about just one thing: stripping away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their development. The proposal is so sweeping and extreme that it would be difficult to capture its full scope in any short title. Calling it the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act” would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards.
The bill would subject any law or government policy that affects the practice of abortion, even indirectly, to an array of sweeping legal tests, designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. The general rule would be that any law that specifically regulates abortion would be presumptively invalid. The same would be true of any law that is not abortion-specific but has the effect or claimed effect of reducing access to abortion. It is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that, where abortion is involved, immediate access to abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is the only thing that matters.
Just another rabid leftist who really has no interest in protecting women, but rather, in using women as pawns in an agenda that would strip them of their valuable role in the home and family and dehumanize them through the barbaric practice of abortion.