Whatever happened to the Arizona WISH chapter?


You remember the notorious WISH List, made equally as noteworthy for those who later wished their names had never appeared on its roster?

The acronym WISH stands for Women In Senate and House. The organization provides funding and training for female, pro-abortion GOP candidates.

Oddly, there has been a mysterious disappearance of the Arizona Chapter of the national pro-abortion Republican group, which preferred the more sanitized designation of “pro-choice.”  After all, who can be opposed to “choice?”

These June 2003 photos along with older 2002 and 2001 gala pics, are all that remain of the once active group. What a shame.

It would be wonderful to think that these high dollar, ladies-who-lunch at their swanky country club soirées, came to their senses regarding the harsh realities of what they were actually celebrating, and abandoned their chapter en masse.

17 Responses to Whatever happened to the Arizona WISH chapter?

  1. Marianne says:

    What good news! I can only hope that the last paragraph (above) is the reason for the demise of the local organization.

    I just finished linking to the “harsh realities” line. What can you call that but spellbinding? I just sent this out to several friends and family members to watch.

    You have done a real service here. Thanks so much.

  2. Villanova says:

    I saw this video years ago when it was first released. It is even more powerful today, now that I am older, and hopefully, somewhat wiser. With the 35th anniversary of Roe v, Wade approaching, this provides a potent reminder of what those years have wrought.

  3. Anna says:

    Thank God they bit the dust!!

  4. Keen Observer says:

    The video is a gutwrencher. Remember that our much touted former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’CONNOR voted in favor of abortion. May “Silent Scream” be her legacy. May I suggest that everyone save this link to circulate to the pro-aborts. Remember people had to see the “Holocaust” before they would believe what was actually occurring. Maybe the WISH folk get it now. If so, we welcome them to the battle for the protection of the most innocent amongst us. the unborn child. “We’re doing it for the children” actually fits in this case.

  5. Mr. Conservative says:

    Thanks for the pictures of Slade Mead… I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. I’m so glad we got rid of him…

  6. Ajo Joe says:

    It’s absolutely astonishing to see the glowing, self congratulatory smiles on these gals faces as they celebrate death to innocents. No wonder this group faded. Disgusting!

    Great video! Hope the commentor who signs in as ‘Horst Kraus’ watches it all the way through to the end. I would be interested to read his comments after that.

  7. Frankly Speaking says:

    Ajo is right on! What’s to celebrate? Those women should have been hanging their heads in shame instead of grinning with their awards in hand. Linked video (highlighted in last sentence) should be seen by all.

  8. Elizabeth says:

    Thnak you, Keen Observer. You said it better than i could have hoped to.

  9. Wide Awake says:

    Seeing Red Az,

    Did you know that the pro-abortion Web site of Christie Todd Whitman’s, “It’s My Party Too ” (John McCain served on their Advisory Board) has also folded. Think there might be a story there for you.

  10. Tony Mackelprang says:

    There is a very profound message to our nation, to the world relative to our nature and character as a people when many celebrate the brutal murder of more than 45 million of those among us who are most innocent and helpless. Consider the above observation for just a moment, then ask yourself, what is the message?
    Also, contemplate this for a moment. Many you come in contact with can identify the teams playing in the Super Bowl, their players and cite statistics ad nauseum but how many can identify candidates for office that are pro-abortion and those that are pro-life? What does this say about our priorities as a people?

  11. Horst Kraus says:

    Ajo Joe,
    I sign my comments with my name, simply because posting under a moniker or even anonymous reminds me too much of the liking to the K.K.K.
    I don’t quite understand your recommendation to me to watch a propaganda movie. You need not bring the agony of an abortion to my attention, I don’t anticipate having one anytime soon. As a matter of fact when it comes down to the actual procedure, or essentially the avoidance thereof, I am on the same page that you are on.
    It is the methodology by which to achieve this lofty goal where we differ. The fundamentalists among us and predaminantly on this Blog like to act by fiat.
    I, on the other hand opt for education and personal responsibility, and let me hasten to add that with responsibility I not look solely upon the women that may be saddled with pregnancy but also to the men that cause it.
    Much too often, and not just in circles of color we find a disturbing number of expected bread winners and family fathers fizzle away into the role mere sperm donors. That is a substantial factor in the equation at discussion here.
    By mere observation it has come to the fore that the American Woman of the 21th century is not easily convinced to listen to old geezers and barren sisters when it comes to making decisions concerning her personal reproductive functions.
    That observation cuts across ideological and political lines. May I politely remind you to look at the exit poll statistics of the 2 most recent gubernatorial elections right here in Arizona.

  12. Keen Observer says:

    I dare say Horst that Hitler loved his exit polls also. He won! Hell with ethics or morality. You seem to continually say, ” Just so a person with an R after their name wins.” What clear Germanic thinking.

  13. Joe Baby says:


    Isn’t there a difference between choosing not to reproduce, and choosing to destroy the product of the reproductive act? Once a woman is pregnant, she can’t choose not to be a mother…she can only choose to destroy her offspring.

    Also, if you’re for the male being responsible, how does abortion accomplish this? If anything, it absolves the male of any responsibility.

  14. Horst Kraus says:

    Keen Observer,
    I do not see a rationale for you entering the name of Hitler into the discussion. I admit that I have imperial knowledge about him because I grew up while he was Chancellor in Germany. You on the other hand appear to know very little and what little you know is half wrong. For what it is worth he, Hitler under his reign decreed abortion to be a criminal act and he incarcerated abortionists. You should proudly call him an ally.
    I also do not understand why you juggle Ethics and Morality into exit polls. As to the formers whose ethics and whose morality are we making reference here?
    As to exit polls on the 2 past AZ gubernatorial elections they are facts of life, sorry. A great number of women, some even with an R behind their name and some from the “Oh so dreadful” Wish-List helped clean the plates of our candidates. To ignore that is like sticking one’s head in the sand.
    As far as clear thinking goes, I would very much like for you to develop such a habit. It is not reserved for Germans only.
    Joe Baby,
    There certainly is a difference between the desire to reproduce and the choice not to reproduce. I do not understand you asking me that question after I clearly stated that I am on your (the social conservative) side of the argument.
    Where I am not in lockstep with you (the social conservatives) is in the means to achieve the desired outcome. Simply because actions that can be taken outside of the watchful eye of the law can not be enforced by law. In the case of abortion they will simply move from safe clinical procedure back into the health hazardous underground.
    Clear thinking, my clear thinking and by the way I am not alone, tells me that abortions can only be eliminated with the moment when every conception is a wanted conception.

    Now Joe Baby, what I am reading between the lines of your post is that you feel that every woman who consents to engage in a sexual manner, with a man I may ad, and in a prescribed biblical manner I may add for clarification, is expected to have done so for the sole and only purpose and with explicit desire to become pregnant. Please tell me if I missed something here.
    In the real world this is not always the case, that is why I ask the question.
    To address your closing paragraph, I have read my post over and over again and I do not see where I could have possibly indicated that I believe that abortions achieve or accomplish men’s responsibilities.
    What I had hoped to make clear is that in order to create a pregnancy it takes a man and a women. Either can employ preventive measures in absence of abstinence. Most men, however, will find that an insult to their prolific virility.

  15. Keen Observer says:

    Horst, You are so off the mark in your tirade as to be not worthy of a reply. But here goes.

    You raised the poll status, I responded in like terms. The reference to Hitler had nothing to do with abortion, but to the fact that Hitler was very popular in Germany(in theory, a high exit poll rating) while he was killing Jews…..ergo in my sense, popularity means nothing when matched against ethics & morality.

    You give the impression that if Hitler had an R after his name, (even though he was killing Jews), we should vote for him. That is ….politicians advocating the killing of babies in the womb is really not that reprehensible, and we really need to look at the good side of the candidate. Some of us have a little higher standard than that whether that means we lose the election or not.

    Winning with an abortion candidate is a loss to us no matter the letter after his name. Look at “Silent Scream” again Horst. If your candidate advocating that killing is OK with you, then we do live in a different universe and there is truly no way to resolve our outllook on killing an innocent human being whether it be a Jew in a concentration camp or a baby in the womb. They both deserve the protection of the law.

    You realize of course that turtle eggs are protected by law, but not so babies in the womb . Don’t turn your face to ignore the killing. Horst, come join the fight to protect the innocent.

  16. Viola Anderson says:

    Re: Christie Todd Whitman, “Its My Party Too” … $2000 contribution from former candidate for Congress in CD1 now looking to remain in the legislature.

    Look at all the former leadership of the ARFW and see all the WISH women who elected Janet over Matt – some still hold officer posts too.

  17. Joe Evans says:

    Mr. Horst Kraus:
    Your comment about Hitler incarcerating abortionists and making the act of abortion a crime:is outside the bounds of decency.

    You are more than all wet…regardless of whether you grew up in Germany, France or Scotland. First of all, the word “incarcerate” refers to jail. Under Hitler’s regime, concentration camps were places of starvation and horror, also functioning as mass extermination camps. Ovens, gas chambers and crematoriums were not for incarceration. Anyone who has an eighth grade education, has read books like Leon Uris’ Mila 18, John Hershey’s The Wall, or even watched the film Schindler’s List, knows that.

    One of many such fiends, Adolph Eichmann, was tried and executed for War Crimes Against Humanity. He admitted taking part in and authorizing heinous crimes involving killing of preborn and newly born babies as well as the slaughter of innocent young children. The Nazis, proud of their “work” filmed many of these nightmarish acts. This, in addition to the atrocities perpetrated against young and old people alike. Your comments don’t do your case any good, Kraus. The Nazis did medical experiments on pregnant women prisoners. I’m sure you know the butcher of Auschwitz, Josef Mengele, was a medical doctor. Eichmann excused his own villanous particpation in the grotesque acts by saying he “was only following orders.”

    Eichmann was found in Argentina where he and other mass murderers hid out.