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!