Is Paula White - wait, Paula “In the name of Jesus, we command all satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now” White - technically a member of the trump Administration?
Enquiring minds would like to know.
She is attached to a subsidiary administrative body, the Throne of God Almighty.
I guess that’ll heat up all the right-to-lifers out there, won’t it. /s
She’s probably aiming to set up a corporation that franchises “Jesus abortion clinics - only satanic babies aborted”. It’s all about the money, after all.
Such a clinic could claim to have identified a gayness gene that can tested for prenatally. Offer this test cheaply, report a high positive rate (just to be on the safe side), charge significantly for an abortion. If anyone asks if there really is a gayness gene and how the clinic tests for it, the clinic then claims protection for their business practices on the basis of religion.
I read a short story years ago in a Queer SF collection, that took the premise that the discovery of a “gay gene” led to the collapse of abortion opposition in the US, as all the evangelical faiths flipped their position once they found out that they could abort the gay away. The only exception was the Catholic church, which stuck to its guns - with the side effect, a few generations later, being that gay bars ended up looking like mid-century Italian restaurants with gaudy Catholic iconography everywhere, and wearing a Virgin Mary t-shirt was basically the same as waving a Gay Pride flag.
The idea of prenatal genetic testing that could determine the sexual orientation of the baby was also the subject of the play and movie The Twilight of the Golds.
OK, for some reason I really want to read this. Do you remember the title or author?
Satanic pregnancy, however, seems to be a commonly-used metaphor in the Pentacostal community, where it’s commonly understood that it has nothing to do with literal pregnancy or abortion. I think this is simply a case of a person having no awareness of how weird it sounds to people outside of her faith tradition, probably because she isn’t used to communicating with anyone outside of her little bubble.
I saw the made-for-TV movie back in the day, but I admit not feeling any kind of suspense when I saw Rosie O’Donnell was playing a supporting role and reasoned that she would never have agreed to appear in the film if it ended with the likely-gay fetus being aborted.
I had not known the movie was based on a stage play, and I admit some amusement to read the quote on the wiki page:
I could look into it further, but I figure offhand that when the play got to Broadway, that audience didn’t see the conflict as a moral dilemma, i.e. they had no sympathy for the pregnant woman contemplating aborting her “gay” fetus. It wouldn’t be “Should she do A or B, each of which has its pros and cons”, but “Should she do the obviously stupid ignorant thing or not do the obviously stupid ignorant thing”. Since the play ends with the abortion, the message is just “it sucks to be gay in America”. A Broadway audience would be pretty aware of this already - it’s not like it would be some thought-provoking revelation to them.
Strangely good business idea.
The moral questions on it are crazy no matter what your viewpoints, but it’s easy money with people who want a cover story for what they’re doing.
You’d need a way to explain the 100% gay gene finding. Probably devise some form of home test for people to take, to get them in the door, and then have a quiz when they get to the clinic where you try to determine whether they’re likely to regret their decision and have the financial resources to sue, and give them back a “straight baby” result, so you have a somewhat less than 100% gay finding rate.
So you tell people, “A mom can sense it”, have the home test have a 90% rate, the in-clinic have a 90% rate, and you have plausible deniability.
Whee.
I was thinking to have a quota system, or at least adopt an airline-style overbooking model. If the abortion doctor is going to be at the clinic on Tuesday and can schedule ten appointments that day, just give the first 15 clients a “positive” on the assumption that 5 will chicken out, and everyone past those 15 gets a negative because of course the test itself is meaningless.
I think if Trump ordered his evangelical followers to have a tracking chip implanted under their skin, right next to a tattoo of the numbers “666”, about 70% of them would rush right out and do as he commanded.
They’d consider it an act of rebellion against fake-news and as a trigger for liberals, especially if the tattoo is clearly visible, like across their foreheads.
Well it’s because ummm, as Trump said, uhhhh “water is big” or something 
I would LOVE to see someone with a backbone just tell them to their face on LIVE national TV, “shut the fuck up and stop lying”.
Whichever Democrat ends up facing Trump in the debates (assuming he doesn’t chicken out) should do exactly that.
Looks interesting. And by the way, a major classic on collaborationism is being shown tonight (12:45am EST) on TCM: The Sorrow and the Pity.
I agree with Sage Rat that this sounds like a good business idea, though I don’t think “on the basis of religion” (my emphasis in the quote) would work across the board. Most evangelicals would not concede that homosexuality is genetically-based; they prefer to think of it as a matter of willful sin. You were NOT born that way; you are CHOOSING an evil lifestyle!!!1!
Other than that, the idea would have no trouble attracting investors.
Most evangelicals would not publicly concede that homosexuality is genetically-based, I could grant you, but given the chance to quietly get a test done just to make God show His work, I think the potential customer pool is there.
Pompeo had an NPR reporter removed from his plane because of his feud with NPR.
State Department boots NPR reporter from trip after Pompeo spat?
What a fucking baby! I’ve seen 3rd graders with thicker skins. “She’s asking me a tough question. I know someone on my staff agreed to that question, but boo fucking hoo”. :mad: