Elizabeth Childs in Her Own Words

Well, after concentrating on many other candidates and issues, I find myself once again having to write about Elizabeth Childs (1/32 Republican–31/32 Moon-Bat). I take no pleasure in what some would call “attacking” a fellow Republican. But in Dr. Childs’ case, she is so far out of step with with Republican thought (not to mention mainstream America), that she must be exposed for the imposter that she is.

This video features Elizabeth Childs speaking to the Newton Republican City Committee earlier this year.

While making her presentation, Dr. Childs actually does a very good job. She’s not a bad speaker, she is articulate, and she professes to be a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. But then the questions started and her cover was completely blown. All it took was one question, the very first question, and her answer showed her true colors.

She is asked about the “current brew ha ha” surrounding gender-selection abortion. And in typical ultra-liberal,  fashion, she impassionedly states: “I am completely opposed to people aborting a fetus based on sex”So far — So good. Sounds reasonable. But with liberals, especially with ultra-liberals, there is always a BIG BUT. And so she continues. But I think the solution there is an ethical responsibility of a woman’s decision with her doctor and with God about what do. I don’t think that you can legislate morality. I think it’s morals and ethics.”

Well Dr. Childs, once we get around the contorted structure of this sentence, which seems to lack a clear object to the verb “is”, we get to the gist of your Radical, Moon-Bat, double-speak. You hold a position which in effect says you won’t lift a finger to outlaw gendercide in the womb. This is not the position of any moderate I know. And it’s certainly not the position of many if not most people who say they are pro-choice. Most all Americans support some legal restrictions on abortion. In particularly in cases of late term abortions. And when it comes to sex-selection abortions, you’re way out of the mainstream of American thought. According to a poll taken by Zogby of 30,000 Americans (that’s no small sample), 86% of Americans want a ban on sex-selection abortions. Dr. Childs, you are not just a typical run-of-the-mill, everyday Moon-Bat. When it comes to this subject, you’re truly special! You’re so far out there on this subject, that you’re Moon-Bat flying around Sycorax, the irregular moon that orbits retrograde around Uranus. And like the planet Uranus’ axis, your moral axis is extremely tilted!

Speaking of orbiting another planet: What utilitarian utopian dimension does  Dr. Elizabeth Childs  come from? Again I quote: I don’t think that you can legislate morality. I think it’s morals and ethics.” Really! I’ve got news for you Dr. Childs: morality and ethics are legislated every day. Almost every law is rooted in someone’s morality. We have a social safety-net, because as society we are aware of the moral obligation to take of those who can’t take care of themselves. We outlaw murder, theft, fraud, graft, bribery and demand high ethical standards for those who practice law, medicine, or serve as public officials. These laws aren’t just written because they serve the utilitarian principles of a well-ordered society. They are rooted in the belief that some things are simply wrong while others are simply right. For Pete’s sake we prosecute people that violate  “ETHIC CODES!”  If morality and indeed “The Natural Law” is not the basis for law, then tell me Dr. Childs: On what basis did we prosecute the Nazis at Nuremberg? They violated no written law of their nation. Yet, they were prosecuted for “Crimes Against Humanity.”

Given that Dr. Childs, incredulously holds such radical leftist views on these subjects, I decided to give her the opportunity to comment or clarify what she believes. Her staff sent me staff sent me a statement which contains the following.

On the issue of gendercide she says:

I believe that sex-selection abortions are abhorrent and the medical community should develop safeguards to prevent them from occurring.

In essence, Dr. Childs has said nothing new here. She still believes that gendercide in the womb should remain legal. She seems to want to walk back the notion that this is a woman’s choice to be made between herself, her doctor, and God. Further; the idea that this can be left to the medical community to police without legislation, is at best naive. At worst it is a disingenuous ploy. Abortion providers and clinics have now become famous for doing whatever or saying whatever necessary to “sell” women abortions. There are a plethora of undercover videos in which we see planned parenthood staff deliberately instructing women on how to first obtain a (Medicaid paid for) ultra-sound abortion to determine the sex of the baby. Then they instruct them to return, for a “non-judgmental solution” to their desires. We also have statements statements made by for former abortion providers. They unequivocally state that their only goal was to “make to the sale.”

The unfortunate fact is. The profit driven abortion industry has no interest in preventing any kind of abortion whatsoever. Moreover, Dr. Childs’ “laissez-faire logic”, whereby we allow the medical community alone to police gender-based abortion , would lead us to  completely deregulate  the medical industry. There should be no “HIPAA Laws” which protect patient privacy. We should eliminate FDA and DEA restrictions on  prescription narcotics and opiates. Doctors themselves should decide what to do about patient privacy. The Medical Community should  be able to establish and implement their own rules respecting the use of Oxycontin or Morphine! This is clearly where Dr. Childs approach leads us.

Let’s face it. Dr. Childs is trying to walk back the  most radical position which espoused before the Newton Republican City Committee. There she states the solution is to found in the “woman’s decision with her doctor and God.” Now she’s saying the “medical community should (not should be required to, but simply should) develop safeguards to prevent [gender based abortions].”

Turning back to the video we find that Elizabeth is not quite not done showing her true colors as fiscal liberal. As a follow up to the question to gendercide, Dr. Childs is asked about Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. To which she states: “I believe that funding for  family planning services is critical and because I believe that I also believe family planning does extend to termination before viability.”

So after giving an articulate, well spoken speech in which she claims to be a Fiscal Conservative, she now states that Federal funding for  family planning is critical! That’s a fiscally conservative position???  But she goes further, she supports Federal Funding for abortion. Again she’s not just out of the Republican mainstream, she’s out the American mainstream when it comes to this particular issue.

Here is the break down of a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University. This question related to the Federal funding of Abortion through Obama-Care. While the question is connected to Health Care reform, the underlying issue is the same.

  • 67% of all Americans are opposed         27% are in favor
  • 87% of Republicans are opposed           10 % are in favor
  • 67% of Independents are opposed         26% are in favor
  • 47% of Democrats are opposed             47% are in favor

So let’s compare Dr. Childs position and see if she is a social moderate. Clearly she’s not even close to being a mainstream of Republican on this issue. When it comes to all Americans or independents she’s marginally closer, but still 2/3 of the people disagree with her. So where does this leave her. Well the Democrats are evenly split. But notice something, not even half  of the Democrats support her position. The split is 47%—47%. Her position is a majority position with absolutely no one.  So at best we can say Elizabeth Childs’ position falls in the mainstream of a  plurality of Liberal Democrat thought!

 

Folks, the evidence in this case is mounting. I would refer readers to Exhibit One and Exhibit Two. All of this indicates Elizabeth Childs is not a RINO. A RINO is someone who is at least fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Childs is fiscally liberal and socially a Moon-Bat from the outer reaches of the Solar System. No we have a new category for her. Dr. Childs is no RINO; she’s a RIFCA (Republican In For  Convenience & Ambition). It’s becoming more and more evident that she became a Republican solely to run for Congress. At the time she registered, Barney Frank had not announced his retirement. Beating him in a Democrat Primary would have been next to impossible. So all the evidence causes me to believe, she decided to become a Republican in order to run. And even the timing of her registration as a Republican is dubious at best. Whether it was before or after she decided or announced her candidacy, it’s barely a year ago. It was clearly only done because it suited her political ambitions not her core values.

On September 6th those pulling a Republican ballot in the Massachusetts’ 4th Congressional District will serve as the jury. Before then we will present whatever other available evidence exists. But there is certainly enough evidence now to convict her. Dr. Elizabeth Childs is a Liberal Democrat, masquerading as a Republican for the sake of convenience and ambition!

25 comments

  1. John DiMascio says:

    Below, I’m posting Dr. Childs entire statement which her staff sent me after I gave her the opportunity to comment and or clarify her position.

    Statement on Women’s Health:

    “I am pro-choice. I believe the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor according to her faith. I believe that we should do everything in our power to reduce abortions in this country while respecting a woman’s personal choices about her health and major life decisions. I believe that the first step in accomplishing this goal is by having a civil discussion on this subject — not demonizing people who have a different opinion.

    As a practicing physician, who has spent decades working with low-income families — including many years in Catholic hospital systems — I believe that providing access to women’s healthcare services, including birth control, is an important health care issue for our society. The current health care system is built in large part on providing health care through publically-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid — a situation that is exacerbated by the Affordable Care Act, which I am in favor of repealing and replacing with a version that protects patients and doctors making decisions together, limits government’s role in these decisions, and contains costs. Today, health care for poor families is government funded. It is important that poor women have access to a full range of health care.

    I believe that sex-selection abortions are abhorrent and the medical community should develop safeguards to prevent them from occurring.

    As a doctor, former state health care official, candidate for Congress and a Christian, I have two clear goals when it comes to reproductive health: the health of the mother and child and reduction of abortions across the country. I hope to work together to achieve these goals.”

  2. Iron Mike says:

    ‘Doctor’ Childs is a FAKE Republican. Not even a RiNO!

    As such – running long before young JPK3 got into the race – she represents an ‘easy win’ for Democrats. they can either vote for the carrot top or her – and get the SAME RESULT on the floor of the House – an uber-liberal vote.

    http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2011/11/15/beware-of-fake-republicans/

    The only REAL Republican in that race is Doctor David Steinhof of Fall River. Support him!

  3. John DiMascio says:

    Well, I agree with the first part. However, Sean Bielat is also a real Republican and has the ability to raise the money, he has the organization, and he has the name recognition to win this race.

    Dr. Steinhof is a fine man. His positions are virtually the same as Sean’s Bielat’s But he doesn’t have the above stated prerequisites to have a shot against the “Red Headed Step Child” Howdy Doody Kennedy.

    Moreover, I’m more than a bit disgusted by the conduct of many of his supporters. They accuse Bielat of being a RINO, but they give Childs a complete pass.

    Dr. Steinhof has every right to run for Congress, but at this point he’s only helping Elizabeth Childs by peeling away the conservative vote from Sean. I hope that doesn’t hand the nomination to Childs.

    That said, I’ll support Steinhof if he wins the primary. And I’d certainly help him in the future if he runs for another more attainable office. He is a great prospect for the Republican farm team in Massachusetts.

    • SLB says:

      Again, I disagree with you John. I don’t see how having the ability to fundraise makes Mr. Bielat the better candidate. Dr. Steinhof is not only the only candidate that is actually from this District, but he has been a Republican for most of his life. He has also been a business owner for over 20 years. He is the only candidate, in my opinion, with a true understanding of the American people and what they go through on a day to day basis. Mr. Bielat may be a nice man, but he doesn’t stand a chance against the Kennedy machine. I don’t think you should count Dr. Steinhof out too soon. Both Mr. Bielat and Joe have commented to him that they are hearing his name “EVERYWHERE”. He is doing this the old fashioned way, by getting out and meeting the people of this district. That doesn’t require huge fundraising, that requires understanding and the ability to speak to people and most of the people he speaks to like what they hear. If (WHEN!) he wins the primary the fundraising will come and Dr. Steinhof is a much stronger candidate to take on Joe.

      • John DiMascio says:

        @ SLB… The ability to raise money makes Sean Bielat a more viable candidate.
        The district has hundreds of thousands of voters. Old fashion campaigning is fundamental. You can’t win without it. But that’s not the only thing it takes in 2012 to win a general election.

        As for being in the district, that’s “Red Herring.” For Peter’s sake tens of thousands of people were just moved into the district because of redistricting! We live in world where people move around all the time.

        For the record, it sounds like your taking a subtle cheap shot at Bielat because he moved back to Pennsylvania for a few months so he and Hope could be with family and HER DOCTORS OF CHOICE, because they were expecting a second baby.

        I’ve grown to expect this from the Childs Campaign and her Moon-Bat supporters who take a rather cavalier attitude about human life in the womb. But I’m seeing these kinds of attacks from Steinhof supporters who allege to be pro-life. And that’s nauseating!!!

        Dr. Steinhof is a fine man. I’d like to meet him some day. I could support the man if he were to win the nomination. But he’d get pummeled by Kennedy. And as I’ve stated repeatedly. Although he has a right to run, he’s only helping Elizabeth Childs by being in this primary race. And I can’t help but wonder if people aren’t using him (unbeknownst to him) by people with vendetta against Bielat, because Bielat mopped the floor against their 2010 primary opponent. They know he can’t win, they just don’t want Sean to get he nomination.

        • SLB says:

          For the record John, I was not taking any “cheap shots” at anyone. Dr. Steinhof IS the only candidate that is even from Massachusetts. Sean did not move here until 2007 and Childs moved here 20 years ago. Dr. Steinhof was born and raised in Fall River and has lived and worked here all his life.
          Also, “for the record”, Dr. Steinhof does not care that Sean left for Penn for a while and fully supports any move he might have had to make for the sake of his family. Dr. Steinhof is fully pro-life and would never condemn anyone for making decisions based on the health of his/her family.

          • John DiMascio says:

            In that case SLB, I accept your explanation that you weren’t taking a Cheap Shot. But I can tell you that I’ve seen several Steinhof supporters on Social Media as well as in emails taking such such shots.

            The Childs’ campaign likewise, is constantly bringing up Sean’s move to PA. Their latest press release of July 17th did it again.

            All that said, the fact that Dr. Steinhof is a lifelong resident of district while the others haven’t is not a significant issue.
            We live in a society where people move. As I pointed out, a good portion of the people that will -be voting in the 4th this year, are not life-long residents. Heck, the some of the Democrats that will be voting probably are non-residents and a good share of deceased residents.

            Finally I have no problems with Dr. Steinhof.
            I do take issue with some his supporters and what they doing in this campaign. In would be in his interest if he instructed them to knock it off because their actions unfortunately reflect on him.

      • Kimberly says:

        Interesting. I’ve never even heard of Steinhof and I’m very ‘in tune’ with politics, elections and this race in particular.

        Without name recognition, he’s toast.

        Little Joe Joe is running on nothing BUT his name and look at how far that has gotten him.

        Bielat is not just a ‘nice man’. He’s a solid conservative who is a capitalist and has excellent experience in business and the ‘real world’. He has something Childs and Kennedy both lack – common sense.

        Since I have zero clue who Steinhof is I cannot comment on him other than to note that he has zero name recognition on a state-wide or national level.

  4. George says:

    Childs is a disgrace. She keeps saying that we should vote for her to put an end to the “bickering” but she is running an almost entirely negative campaign.

    All she does is attack Bielat, and from what I can see, almost always by stretching the truth (if not flat out lying!). Look at the press releases on her website, it’s all whining about Sean Bielat! Barely ever mentions Kennedy.

    The fact that she is STILL trying to attack Bielat for spending a few months in Penn. during his wife’s pregnancy is PATHETIC. We can do a LOT better that Elizabeth Childs.

  5. Sheryl says:

    She supports public funding for family planning organizations including abortion. Planned Parenthood? Why is it that people who work with the poor want to keep giving them more and more. How about working really hard to make them NOT poor anymore. I have nothing against poor people who are trying hard to get ahead. It’s the 2nd and 3rd generation welfare frauds that are receiving most of that money. That is what I have a problem with and I’m not alone.

  6. Carolyn Crilly says:

    I’m glad and impressed that all this work was put in to finding this data. The Childs campaign can’t just say Vote Core Values is trying to paint her as an extremist. The American people say she’s an extremist on these issues.

    Vote Core Values really make the case. Elizabeth Childs in not the moderate she claims to be. The statistical date is extensive and devastating. Childs has no wiggle room on the issue of publicly funded abortions less that half the Democrats even believe in that.
    On the issue of abortion to choose the sex of child, she’s even further on the fringe.

  7. Maryanne Jefferson says:

    I happen to agree with Dr. Childs.

    Only a I should decide when to have an abortion. No one has the right to tell me what reasons are acceptable. If I want a girl, I has every right to terminate the pregnancy if the fetus is a male. No one has the right to pass a law that infringes on my right to pursue happiness, as I and I alone define it.

    I’m so sick of people telling me that there is a right and wrong, who I can love, what kind of relationships I can have.

    So thank you Elizabeth Childs for standing up for my right to have the kind of child I may want to have.

    I am concerned that she expects the government to pay some of these things though. I’m just as sick of people telling me I have to pay for other people’s happiness.

    • Iron Mike says:

      Frankly Ma-am, I find your ideas of ‘individual happiness’ revolting.

      Your unborn child has the SAME right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as you do.

      If you really believe you have the right to kill your unborn child – on a WHIM – then you were not raised as a human being.

    • Lonnie says:

      I suggest you hold out for an alien baby.
      Please!

      S.P.S.R. (Stupid People Shouldn’t Reproduce)

    • Kimberly says:

      WOW… do you also believe in infanticide?

      How about getting an abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, including the 9th month, for ANY reason?

  8. Pat says:

    Think on this. Joe K3 is mostly likely going to win the Democratic primary. The man has no qualifications other than being a Kennedy and a moonbat. For better or worse, people like celebrity (think Obama, who had no qualifications), so an unqualified Kennedy is going to be tough to beat. Tough, but not impossible. The only way to beat him is to differentiate yourself from him.

    If you vote for Childs, you really are getting more of the same – of course they’ll vote for Kennedy.

    Sean Bielat is an actual conservative – Marine, businessman, father and husband. The district is now more conservative losing Bedford, and Sean is the only one with the organization to beat a Kennedy. And that is the ultimate goal – to beat Kennedy.

  9. Fred says:

    Q: What did this so-called “Republican” do in 2010 to help Bielat unseat Barney Frank?

    A: Nothing.

    Case closed. If Childs were the “fiscal conservative” she claims to be, she would have done everything in her power to remove Congressman Frank, not just in 2010, but for the last three decades. She did nothing…ever…except, of course, extract money from the tax payers as an overpaid bureaucrat.

  10. haole says:

    when in rome be a roman !
    history is littered with empires that would sacrifice children to the “gods”.ancient societies would kill children to satisfy their blood thirst.
    present society included.
    i can’t figure out the grand-parents of those that have been sacrificed.dr.childs is just a reflection of that thirst for blood.

  11. RINO-Hunter says:

    Dead on Fred! Where the heck has she been? What was she doing in 2010? Oh, donating to Democrats!

  12. Factfinder says:

    Based on personal knowledge of the MA4th Candidates:

    BIELAT: Military man; Very Intelligent, Honest, Well spoken Individual, Good Public speaker, Good sense of humor, Good Public Appeal, Very fiscal and socially Conservative. Has political Savy.
    Principle Negative issue: Relocating

    CHILDS: Medical Professional; Very Intelligent, Honest, well spoken Individual, Very good Public Speaker, Good sense of Humor, Good Public Appeal, Fiscally Conservative and Socially moderate to liberal. Has Political Savy.
    Principle Negative issue: Socially not conservatively strong facing a Republican Primary.

    STEINHOF: Medical Professional; Very Intelligent, Honest, well spoken Individual, New to Public speaking however improving, Teriffic sense of Humor, Good Public Appeal, Very Fiscal and Socially Conservative.
    Principle Negative issue: Two months to establish name recognition and most Conservatives already with Bielat.

    Projection:
    I concur with John DiMascio’s assesment.

    In the Republican Primary, Bielat carry’s the day based on the name recognition established during the well publized, Nationally followed “Frank” contest; and the support base that was aquired.

    This is ground that there is not enough time for Steinhof to make up as a relative new comer although he should draw about 15% from far right voters and the Fall River area.

    Childs would have greater appeal to the moderate unenrolled voters in November, even with the conservatively improved District. However, she will be hard pressed to beat the more Conservative Bielat in the Republican Primary AND his established name recognition. I would guess she pulls about 35%.

    Note: Three very impressive Individuals!

    • John DiMascio says:

      @ Factfinder… I agree with much of what you say.
      I do disagree on a couple of points.

      Childs would not attract more moderates in November. Her views on social issues aren’t moderate at all. They are radical and indeed on the fringe. Only 1/3 of all Americans agree with her on funding abortion. As far as banning sex-selection abortions she stands against 86% of the country. Moreover, anyone who holds those views and votes because of those issues, will not vote Republican period. It doesn’t matter how pro-choice the candidate is. In addition NARAL readily admits there is serious enthusiasm gap between Pro-choice voters and pro-life voters.

      As far as the results of the primary, after seeing today’s debate, I think Steinhof could come in second.Her voter base isn’t motivated. She inspires no one.

      • Factfinder says:

        Point taken John however please keep in mind, aside from her somewhat radical views, that the unenrolled voters will most likely significantly out vote the registered Republicans considering the Primary ballot options and she is the only woman, as well as the only pro-choice Candidate as well. I will stick with a 35% at this point in time.

        • John DiMascio says:

          Factfinder, you keep on making the same mistake the MA-GOP makes. You think that just because someone is unenrolled they are moderate or social liberals.

          The MA-GOP has been more socially liberal than many Democrats. People haven’t left the MA-GOP to become unenrolled because it’s socially conservative. They’ve left because it’s been a haven for fiscally conservative Moon-Bats.

          To win this election, the nominee will need to win much of the unenrolled vote as well as the Reagan Democrats. The Reagan Democrats are social conservatives by and large.

          And her views aren’t somewhat radical! They subsist only in Moon-Bat territory. She’s out of step with 2/3 of the American population.

          We can no-longer afford the ill-fated MA-GOP strategy of the past few decades. Look at what happened in 2010. Charlie Baker got his clock cleaned. And the 17 State Reps that won were mostly socially conservative and won only with the help of the Tea Party and Conservative organizations.

          So please, look at the real facts. You’re theory has proven wrong over and over.

  13. Factfinder says:

    John, you would be correct if I had stated that Dr. Childs would win, which I did not. I’m theorizing 35% in the Primary based on; she is the only woman candidate and she wants to maintain choice, though granted her recent comments relative to choice have been extremely liberal.

    The sad truth is that only a small percentage of the Voters actually know much detail about the Candidates they are placing a check next to Usually its one issue that may affect them personnaly and right now its pretty much the economy 100%, everything else 0%.

    “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts”, remember that Bumper sticker? Yes that’s Massachusetts, one of, if not the most liberal State in the Country voting contrary to every other State in the Country (DC is not a State obviously). You want to survive here, you best not have an “R” after your name, especially if your work involves any type of government at any level.

    I agree with you John, there are many Socially Conservative liberals in Massachusetts however you won’t find them listed as one of the 11%, its a death sentence on this Democrat controlled island. You will do as most every Public school Teacher (and State College Professor) in this state programs you do do, become and vote Democrat (at least until you get in that booth).

    Consequently, the safest place to be right now, if you don’t want to be flagged in Massachusetts, is Unenrolled. Perhaps thats why the Unenrolled Voters significantly outnumber both the R’s and the D’s combined; and I think thats a good sign for our future Conservative Candidates.

    You are completely wrong John in your statement that I believe that if they are Unenrolled they are either moderate or socially liberal. I believe that there are many unadulterated hard and fast Conservative Unenrolleds. Heck, I’ll bet that there are many registered as Dems!(most likely married to some Union spouse).

    Interesting, I was talking to an extremely honest young Massachusetts man last night who refuses to be a member of either party. {He originally was registered as a Democrat} He likes being able to choose any Primary ballot and vote the Candidate, not the Party. (perhaps another good sign). He also told me Republican’s were to religous (he was brought up a Catholic)and that the Democrats were all to often self-serving hypocrytes. I did not have a chance to gleam any futher details except for he will probably vote for Romney because of the economy even though he apreciated Ron Paul’s character.

    Pending any obvious major pardigms, We will soon see in September our political prognostication skills!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *