We’re pretty sure Cecile Richards has the market cornered on disturbing.
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 20, 2017
“Probe his disturbing history on women’s issues” …
Let’s think about what she is really saying here. First of all, she is talking about abortion, not actual rights. Yeah, they love to pretend this is about something else but ultimately abortion is Cecile’s bread and butter. Second, Gorsuch has a history of following the Constitution LITERALLY, which means LIFE is life and a right …
Leave it to Cecile to find life disturbing.
— Dixie Red Rocket (@DixieRedRocket) March 20, 2017
Interesting when someone who advocates abortion as contraception tries to wax poetic about moral authority, right?
— just alan (@anythingbutdem) March 20, 2017
Especially a judge who has been known as a literalist when it comes to the Constitution; Cecile knows he won’t buy the “it’s not life until this week” BS that keeps them in business.
— P Henry Martin (@PHenryMartin) March 20, 2017
— Jacqué Stoddard (@jacquestoddard) March 20, 2017
They would say the same about literally any pro life person. Mother Teresa had a "disturbing history on women's issues" as well. https://t.co/bjdiY2w8yI
— Kayla (@VixenRogue) March 20, 2017
Of course she would because clearly she finds the idea of life disturbing.