Abortion, Trump Derangement Syndrom, and the Women’s March on DC

womens-march-best

by Diane Rufino, January 25, 2017

Last week, I drove to our nation’s capital from North Carolina to witness the swearing-in of the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and to celebrate with like-minded Americans his inauguration. It was a great day – an electric day!!  The next, Saturday, I woke up in my hotel room and prepared for a full day of walking around the national mall, visiting all the monuments and memorials, and then finishing up at the Supreme Court building, a place I’ve never been able to visit on all my prior visits to DC. I had no idea that a bunch of protesters were beginning to assemble. I had not heard about the Women’s March on DC.

But I soon found out. Heading out of the hotel, I saw some women with crazy-looking knitted pink hats on their heads. And then I saw some men with the same hats on.  What was going on?  A lady walking down the street with me told me the story. There was going to be a big march – Women’s March – down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, to protest Trump’s inauguration and to “stand up for their rights” and their issues. The organizers of the event, including Linda Sarsour (executive director of the Arab American Organization of New York and an activist seeking Sharia Law in the US), encouraged participants to wear pink hats to show solidarity and hence, to feel empowered. The pink hats are “pussyhats” – a sartorial reference to a comment that Mr. Trump made, which was captured in an audio, about Hollywood women being so loose that you can “grab them by the ***** (genitals).” The comment was made 12-13 years ago.

We both asked each other the same question: “Where were the marches and the protests years ago when Democratic president Bill Clinton was serially objectifying women and sexually harassing them?  Why weren’t women outraged then?”  Clinton actually put his hands and mouth on women and using his position of power as president of the most powerful nation in the world, coerced women for sexual favors such as oral sex in the Oval Office while Donald Trump merely talked about it in a moment of male bravado with another man.

So, it couldn’t be Trump’s treatment of women that worked these women up in a frenzy. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct came from someone of their own political party. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct was far more objectifying and harassing. And they were perfectly fine voting for and then supporting via protest the day after Trump’s inauguration for a woman (Hillary Clinton) who used her power as the president’s wife to further harass, intimidate, slander, and otherwise destroy the victims’ reputation and credibility. When women did not readily submit, offer their body parts and “services” to her husband and then remain quiet about it, she took the active role in protecting her husband’s position rather than standing up for the very rights and dignity women in the march were so vocally protesting for. Again, the march could not be simply about Trump’s use of a crass term.

Walking further into the Lion’s den, I noticed signs that read “We Stand for Women’s Rights” and “Equality for Women.” And so, I thought about the rights that these women might be referring to. Women can vote (19th Amendment), they cannot be discriminated in hiring (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and they cannot be paid differently for the same job under the same conditions (again, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).  Not only are women’s rights protected under the law, but if they believe they are discriminated against, they have a cause of action to sue and seek justice.

What about LGBT rights?  In 2015, the Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed its opinion down that homosexuals and lesbians have the right marry.  If heterosexuals can marry, then under an equal protection argument, homosexuals and lesbians have that right too.  Donald Trump doesn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage but he believes the Supreme Court over-stepped his authority by making it a national policy when the decision should have been left to each state independently.  I believe Trump is absolutely correct in this position.  Marriage is historically a state issue only, pursuant to its police powers.

My guess is that the LGBT participants were just protesting because they don’t like Trump, don’t like what he stands for (ie, not a progressive), and don’t want him as the president.

Once I got to Jefferson Ave and then Independence Ave (heading to the Jefferson Memorial), and trying to navigate through the crowds coalescing closer towards Pennsylvania Ave, there was one theme that rang out more loudly than the others. The countless signs speaking to the unfettered right of women over her body and fertility, abortion rights, and the right to have healthcare cover it all was all I needed to see to understand that one of the main purposes of the Women’s March was to show their joint support for their right to an abortion. According to these “Women’s Rights” protesters, Roe v. Wade was a great decision which essentially gave women the right to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason without any government interference. It’s their body, they claim, and they are entitled to have complete control over what is done with it. They also want their health insurance to cover their abortions. That is, they want taxpayers to pay for them. “It’s My Body; My Choice.  But I want YOU to Pay for It!”  They are in full panic mode because of Trump’s promise to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which among other things requires health insurers to cover birth control, and his very vocal position on the future make-up of the Supreme Court so that it values the life of the unborn.

By the way, when did “Women’s Rights” become synonymous with the right to terminate the life of a living but yet unborn child?  That logic seems to boils down to this: “My life would be easier without this baby in it and I have the right over my own life and destiny. And besides, that baby’s life is inconsequential and not valuable.”  And so, the woman terminates that baby’s life for her ease and comfort.

Perhaps it was the March for Life that was going to take place in six days (Friday, January 27), in concert with the President’s inauguration, that convinced the protesters to march when they did.  Perhaps it was a brilliant plan to invite women holding any of a myriad of grievances against Donald Trump to march at the same time. This way, they could claim on January 21 that the march was in protest of his election and then claim for purposes of the national debate on abortion (v. the Right to Life) that the rally was in support of abortion and was larger than the March for Life. There is power in numbers. And we all know how the liberal media loves numbers (and loves to misrepresent them too!). To see how the organizers reached out to all groups who oppose Trump, simply read their manifesto – their “Guiding Vision and Principles of the Women’s March on Washington.”  *

While the protest was officially designed to be an anti-Trump event, the sea of pink hats sent the equally-collective message that the march was in support of abortion rights. The march therefore, served two purposes for the Left.

As it turns out, the organizers of the march refused to recognize and allow any groups who are not in favor of abortion to be officially part of the march. The biggest sponsor of the march was Planned Parenthood and other support flowed from none other than George Soros. According to the mission statement for the march (“Overview & Purpose” *), the purpose of the march is to demonstrate for a particular vision of government which recognizes their views. The first of these reads: “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet for which we unite to March on Washington.” In other words, it was a protest against President Trump and his new administration. The statement or manifesto goes on to elaborate other reasons for rallying against Trump, including that “the rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened” women of all different communities.

According to the website listing the groups affiliated with the march, what united the groups was their demand for “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people.” This, apparently, summed up what they considered their essential “Women’s Rights.”  The other themes – equality in the workplace, open immigration, non-registry for immigrants and refugees from Islamic countries – were just peripheral; just additional scenery; just another ruse to get as many warm bodies to march in what would ultimately be a show of hatred of Donald Trump. Women who did not vote for Trump but were pro-life were taken off the official list of marchers and not recognized. And they were made to feel that they are not “woman enough” because somehow they have sold out the gender. In fact, organizer Linda Sarsour had this message for them – If you show up, you better understand that you are going to be counted as among those who support a woman’s right to choose. The only women who were officially associated with the march and listed as part of the event were those who oppose President Trump AND who are pro-abortion. The Women’s March essentially declared that pro-life women do not have a place at the event, even if a woman is an ally on every other issue that the protest claims to fight for.

Any pretext that the march would present an intelligent articulation of the protesters’ grievances was thrown out the window when the actress Ashley Judd took the stage.  She said that she, and other protesters, who want to terminate a pregnancy up until the day before delivery, are “nasty women,” but “not as nasty as the man in the White House.”  She read a thrash poem written by a 19-year-old community college student Nina Donovan who was enraged that Donald Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman” during the campaign.

It was a vile poem by a young girl who has been brainwashed and stupefied by the rantings of progressives who have long turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of Democrats and who have tied themselves to the party of every group seeking to erode and destroy the fabric of the United States or otherwise parasitize and weaken everything good that we once stood for and the party that seeks to destroy everything good and decent in our society for the greater goal of absolute personal freedom without any accountability or consequence.

Any pretext that the march would be civil and dignified was thrown out the window when Madonna, the skanky, sex-obsessed star of the 80’s, took the podium. She talked about the march being the start of a revolution. “We refuse as women to accept this new age of tyranny. Where not just women are in danger but all marginalized people. It took us this darkness to wake us the fuck up….  It seems as though we had all slipped into a false sense of comfort. That justice would prevail and that good would win in the end. Well, good did not win this election…  Let’s march together through this darkness and with each step. Know that we are not afraid. That we are not alone, that we will not back down. That there is power in our unity…  To our detractors that insist that this March will never add up to anything, fuck you. Fuck you.”  She concluded by saying: “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House….”  Apparently, she also performed, torturing thousands. During her so-called performance of “Human Nature,” she cheerfully told President Trump to “suck a d—k.”  Always the epitome of grace and class, Madonna didn’t disappoint.

Madonna is washed-up and used-up. She may not want to give up, but sure wish she would shut up.

And I wish all of Hollywood would too.  I mean, where does anyone in Hollywood or in the sex industry (I mean, pop music industry), have the moral high ground to criticize the conduct of anyone?  Hollywood and cinema oozes sexual exploitation. Movies are filled with nudity, sex scenes, inappropriate attitudes towards sexuality, and cheapened roles of women in society. Pop singers dress provocatively and dance suggestively. Their music videos are glorified soft porn videos. Sex sells. I can’t even begin to describe what rappers and the women they associate with sing about, dance about, and do in their videos. All of these entertainers, most of who associate with the types who protest Donald Trump and who support the Women’s March, are hypocrites. Their personal lives are rife with scandal, affairs, drugs, children out-of-wedlock, marriages that barely last a year, boob jobs, liposuction, and plastic surgery. In other words, they live their lives without consequence and display a total lack of morals. They wouldn’t know what the inside of a church looks like or understand why the family unit is important to society.  They would do well to look in the mirror and understand that their conduct and immorality has done more to undermine the legitimacy and status of women in our society than any comment that Trump has made. It is their conduct that has led to the current trend where young women put themselves out there to be objectified and cheapened. They cheapen themselves through the way they act. And when men happen to take notice, they clamor for the so-called right to be treated with “dignity” and not as sex objects.

The feminazis (a term used here to denote their use of propaganda to deceive and breed hatred) certainly worked themselves up into in a frenzy feeding on their collective disdain for Trump and then diluted their followers into believing that he will use his presidency to strip them of their “Women’s Rights.”  I’m sure they believe that.  Perhaps they believe that if they make enough noise and show enough numbers that Trump will rethink his position, rethink his policies, and abandon his choices for the high court.

Putting aside the vulgarity and the hate and the incendiary language and the hype that women will be losing their rights under a Trump presidency, and putting aside the obvious solidarity the protesters showed for their right to an abortion ahead of the March for Life, the march was held for one reason and one reason only – to lash out at the fact that they LOST the election and to show their disdain for the great man who won the election. It wasn’t so much a march for women as it was a march against President Trump. The march, first and foremost, was intended to stain Trump’s perfect inaugural week-end, and through its numbers, attempt to make the case (thru the liberal media) that Trump’s election was somehow illegitimate and that he is a threat to the rights of so many citizens. It was intended to embarrass him, to emphasize the point of the liberal media that Trump is a divider and not a unifier, and provide fodder for the liberal media so that they didn’t have to provide coverage of the exciting day that he had being sworn in as our new president.  In fact, one of the most common signs was one that read: “NOT MY PRESIDENT.”   [And “Pussies Against Trump!”]

I’m not saying the March for Women was not enormous and imposing in its scope. It was. It was clearly well-organized and fueled by a deep hatred by most groups comprising the Left for our new president…  a hatred that no protester could articulate rationally. In the days following the rally, critics have made this point over and over again. Why was the Communist Party marching with the Women’s March?  Why were groups supporting Sharia Law marching? Surely, Sharia Law can’t be compatible with the rights articulated by the March’s mission statement. Hypocrisy and offensive conduct defeated the impact of the protest. Where were the protests when Democrats were objectifying women?  Why wasn’t Joe Biden vilified and called a racist when he said that then-Sen. Barack Obama was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Rather, he was embraced as the choice for vice-president.  What is so unbecoming a woman who wants to express the view that her body be respected for the life it can bring forth that she was unwelcome to march alongside the others?

How glaring was the irony in removing a pro-life sponsor from the Women’s March?  In doing so, they showcased the same divisiveness, intolerance, and discrimination as the claims they wheeled against the man who now sits in the White House and whose election they so energetically protested against.  How ironic is it that the Women’s March organizers chose the famous quote by African-American poet Audre Lorde to close their mission statement: “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences”?

Perhaps liberals and progressives will never be able to understand conservatives and vice-versa. Perhaps the differences in ideology and lifestyle expectations are just too extreme from one another. Maybe it is true that a second Civil War is upon us and that right now, we are fighting ideologically rather than physically. And maybe that is why Donald Trump has advocated that on certain issues, the policy should be left to the individual states and should not lie with the federal government.

Conservatives never approved of Barack Obama and his politics or agenda but they never protested in the street claiming that he was not their president.  They may have protested his ramming of Obamacare down the nation’s throat, despite the majority of the people not in favor of it and despite a great majority of legal scholars believing national healthcare was unconstitutional. They may have protested how he pushed for that legislation and the backdoor politics involved that so completely went against his campaign promise of complete transparency. But they never behaved as if he was not the president of all of America. They never held themselves out as being a segment of the population that was entitled to something different than the rest of the country or that their voices were more important than others.

If you live in the United States and consider yourself an American, then the election process outlined in the US Constitution dictates how our presidents are chosen. Because we are not a monolithic society, the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes the president. He (or she) is elected because he represents the prevailing view across the entire country, recognizing the fact that people in different states have different views, different concerns, and different issues that need to be addressed equally by the government that sits in DC. In a federal system as we have, the constituents (the states) are represented equally and fairly and not the individual citizens as a whole. Donald Trump was elected fairly by the people. He may not have been elected by any of the people who marched in any of the Women’s Marches that took place across the country on the day after the election, but he was elected fairly and legally.

The country spoke through Donald Trump and they were quite clear on one thing – they were rejecting the progressive agenda of the Democratic Party on the national level.  They endured eight years of an extremely progressive president, and based on what they saw him do, what they watched on TV and read in the news regarding the state of the nation and the world, what they learned the courts were doing, what they noticed in the conduct of our youth, and what they experienced on a personal and economic level, they concluded that the country was heading in the wrong direction, including the government’s ability to interpret the Constitution.

For example, on the issue of abortion, the consensus among American women is that there needs to be limits on the right to have an abortion. As it stands now, under Roe v. Wade, a woman has an unfettered right to an abortion on demand – at any time and for any reason. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that doctors, facilities and other entities cannot place any obstacles to a woman’s exercise of this right – including an 1-day waiting period, including information about what the procedure will do to the baby, and including showing the woman an ultrasound of the life inside her. The national consensus today is that there should be limits on the right and ability to obtain an abortion and that limit is the first three months. In other words, the majority of women respect the right to life of the unborn and believe that if a woman wishes to abort the fetus growing in her womb, it is not unreasonable to require her to do so within the first three months. Together with those who do not support abortion at all time, the majority of women in the United States recognize the right to grow and survive in the growing fetus and the right to life in the unborn. This is in stark contrast to the women who marched in DC (and in other cities around the country) who would treat the miracle inside her as merely a mass of cells without any inherent humanity and would deny that living miracle the most essential of all rights bestowed upon living things by our Creator – the right to life.  Hence, the majority of Americans, when faced with the realization that the next president would appoint new members to the US Supreme Court and hopeful for the opportunity to see limits placed on the right to an abortion, voted for Donald Trump.  Our national conscience was at stake in this election.

By the way, no other country, except perhaps Pakistan and China, are as progressive as the United States when it comes to abortion rights. Europe, while recognizing rights to an abortion, at least have limits on when they can be performed.

How can we continue to pray to our Creator for his continued blessings on our country, in the many things we do and the many challenges we face, when we blatantly reject his teachings through our nation’s position on abortion? As Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, commented: “Access to abortion is an American Value.”  How can we expect the blessings of Divine Providence when we continue to devalue the life, the most innocent of life, he has given us and stand by as women allow themselves to become pregnant through casual conduct and then terminate that life so callously?  We have to do better.

But those who marched and those who think like them do not want to do better. They don’t want to even try to do better. In fact, their position is that they have a right not to be expected to do better. They want the national position to be that women have the right to a government that rejects any sense of morality in its laws and policies.  To them, a woman’s bundle of rights includes the right to be free from morals and expectations.

And hence, we saw protesters of every type marching for their right not to be judged, not to be labeled by the traditional meaning of “woman,” for their right to unfettered a access to an abortion, for their right to have their birth control and abortions paid for by the American taxpayer, and for their right to dress like complete sluts while making sure men don’t think of them or treat them that way.

The march reminded me of the actions of a young child. If you take away her toy, at first she tries to beg for the toy back. When that doesn’t work, she pouts and cries. When that doesn’t work, she takes a hissy fit and then starts to call her Mom all kinds of names. “You’re a mean Mom!”  “I hate you!”

As I mentioned earlier, when I arrived in DC for the inauguration festivities, I was unaware of the march.  It was not until I got up and out of my hotel that I learned about it.  Although the protest was called “The Women’s March on DC,” the title was deceiving. It certainly was not a march on behalf of all women. As mentioned earlier, the Women’s March did not represent all women because they chosen not to. It represented only women who think like the organizers. If a woman does not think or act in line with their specific brand of feminism, she does not count as a woman and cannot march under the banner of “Women’s March.”

Doesn’t a woman have the right, in the face of adversity and perhaps in the face of being without a husband to support and love her and the fetus inside her, to choose life?  Why did the organizers of the March reject this viewpoint?  How COULD they reject this viewpoint?  How did it happen that Women’s Rights groups have been able to brainwash women to overlook the horrific acts which accomplish an abortion and convince her that they are part of her bundle of equality rights. Frankly, it baffles me.

As Kelsey Kurtinitis writes in her article in the Liberty Conservative: “The Women’s March claims to recognize that “defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us” — but how can they not realize that the most marginalized group in America is the unborn? No other group in the country has been targeted for mass murder; more than 54 million babies have been killed since the Roe V Wade decision in 1973.”

Jen Kuznicki, in Conservative Review, writes: “The whitewash of the mass genocide and torture of the unborn in America by pro-abort groups is a stain on this great nation equal to the acceptance and proliferation of slavery. Yet some women continue to refuse to look at what they claim is their right for what it actually means.

Diluted by the false narrative that women ought to be able to do what they wish with their own bodies, the protesters (pro-abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood) are blind to the fact that the body growing within their womb is a completely different body. It has different DNA, different blood, and will have a unique soul. And yet, that separate body – that new body – was partly created by her. This fact, together with the hormones surging through her body (in and of itself a miracle of nature and God), help create a bond of affection and protection.

womens-march-abortion

Abortion is the most violent of rejections of both those human traits. Saline abortions burn the fetus and kill it. A saline abortion involves an injection of a very caustic salt solution into the amniotic sac which the baby swallows, causing his or her death. Labor begins 12 – 36 hours later.” If one were to watching this process take place, it would be clear that there is torture involved. On an ultrasound, the unborn child can be viewed thrashing around in immense pain as his or her skin burns. No less a means of torture is the suction aspiration abortion where the baby is pulled into the strong suction of a vacuum which rips off her or her legs and arms before the body and head are crushed. Again, on ultrasound, the baby can be seen moving desperately to push away from that vacuum. Already, the baby has a strong will to survive.

Finally, there is the D&E abortion (Dilation and Evacuation), which is performed in the second trimester of pregnancy – usually between weeks 13 and 24 but can used up until week 32. This procedure is particularly heinous because the doctor himself dilutes the woman’s cervix and then uses instruments to physically, surgically break the baby’s bones and tear off his or her arms and legs. As Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortion doctor, testified in court: “We would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip.”  [Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S].  Dr. Paul Jarrett, another abortion doctor, testified: “I used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14-week-size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart.”

Former abortion doctor Dr. Anthony Levatino explained (in testimony) “Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.” In one medical text (Dr. Warren Hern, pg. 154), under “Abortion Practice,” where it describes the “legal procedure for conducting an abortion”, it reads: “A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus…”  Dr. Jarrett remembers: “I was finally able to remove the head and look squarely into the face of a human being…a human I had just killed.”

We all know that the growing fetus can feel pain but can we imagine the torture and the intense pain the baby feels, at age 20-32 weeks, while being harmed and dismembered.

The coup de grace, of course, occurs when the baby, after surviving this parade of absolute horribles, miraculously is born still alive. Very often, the doctor will “finish him or her off” by severing the spinal cord, crushing the skull, or something equally abhorrent, and then tossing the body in a garbage.

If that’s a problem (and to most it isn’t), according to the Women’s Choice activists, there is always the post-conception pill (Plan B).  Unfortunately, w kills the child at a much more acceptable phase of life, between five and nine weeks. The only thing is that the pill starves the child to death over a long period of time.

Abortion goes against all things which are natural. It’s a termination of a life, however you look at it. This insensitivity to life and this outright torture of an innocent unborn baby cannot be what is meant by a “Woman’s Right.”

Remember the mission statement proclaimed by the Women’s March: “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet for which we unite to March on Washington.”  How can a woman boast advocacy for human rights while simultaneously denying the humanity of unborn human beings?  How can a woman, of all human beings, deny this?  How can a woman march for her unfettered ability to have casual and consequence-free sex (claiming it to be a protectable right) while at the same time fighting against the inalienable right to life of the developing young woman in the womb?

As it turns out, there are more women who do not share the same position on abortion as those who protested.  And I am one of them.

Now, the abortion issue is what bothers me terribly. I understand that mistakes happen, birth control is not fool-proof, and that there can be instant regrets, but that is not what this group is about. They want full control over what happens in their womb and with their body, including the unfettered right to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason whatsoever (ie, the most liberal reading of Roe v. Wade). The problem is that when a woman is pregnant, there is a second body inside her, a second life, with a separate set of genes and an equal right to life. The womb she seeks so selfishly and aggressively to protect is the same womb that God and nature blessed her with in order to carry out the most important job of all – bringing forth new life and propagating the most advanced and special of all of God’s creations.

God, in His infinite wisdom, gave women this enormous responsibility. Knowing her capacity for love, patience, nurturing, wisdom, and devotion, she was the gender chosen for this incredible and essential of nature’s processes. And for all of man’s time on Earth, she has taken care that this process has continued and has moved us forward. She has conceived and born children, she has loved her children unconditionally and regardless of the situation in which they were given to her, she has nurtured and educated them, and has set them free to take their places in our society. She has helped in immeasurable ways to form the solid foundation on which our communities are built.

The women who marched on January 21 have their right to do so, but how sad it is that they ignore the fact that another human being is involved and how sad it is that they reject the awesome responsibility that God and nature has placed with them. In this, they only weaken the role a woman holds in our society, not strengthen it.

References:
* Mission Statement of the Women’s March — https://teainpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/90872-wmwguidingvision26definitionofprinciples.pdf

Exposing Abortion.  http://exposeabortion.com/

Kelsey Kurtinitis, “The Exclusionary Hypocrisy of the Women’s March,” The Liberty Conservative, January 17, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/exclusionary-hypocrisy-womens-march-washington/

Jen Kuznicki, “Women’s March on Washington is Really a March Against Women, Science, and Life Itself,” January 2017.  Referenced at:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/womens-march-on-washington-is-really-a-march-against-women-science-and-life-itself

The Supreme Court Failed the Pro-Life Movement By Further Entrenching the Notion of a Woman’s Unfettered Right to Abortion Access

Supreme Court - abortion

by Diane Rufino

In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the biggest abortion case in decades. The question before the court addressed the permissible or impermissible obstacles to a woman’s right to an abortion – or more correctly put: to abort and end the life of the fetus growing inside her. This was the question that faced the Supreme Court for the first time in the landmark case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which was decided in 1992.

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court. In fleshing out the scope ofRoe v. Wade, the Court addressed this question: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe?

In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden,” which is defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices. If you have any question what Judicial Activism looks like, this was it.

The case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt addressed a statue passed by the Texas legislature in 2013 – House Bill 2. House Bill 2 (HB2) required, among other things, that doctors performing the abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals and that clinics meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC), such as wider hallways, specifically sized “operating” rooms and other medically unnecessary building code rules — restrictions that have led clinics across the state to close. Texas clinic owner Amy Hagstrom Miller sued the state of Texas over the bill.

The justices asked such questions as what is the necessity of such a law and what exactly is its purpose, whether a woman seeking an abortion is presented with an undue burden by having to travel a bit further for the procedure if it means that the procedure is safer and the experience is better. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a staunch defender of the unfettered access to an abortion and the unfettered right of a woman to control her fertility and reproduction, asked: “What is the benefit of having to go to an ambulatory surgical center to take two pills?” She was questioning the medical necessity of the law.


On June 27, the Supreme Court handed down its decision. In a 5-3 split of the justices, the Court concluded that the provisions of HB2 do not offer medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens they place on a woman’s access to an abortion. Each provision places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion and therefore acts as an impermissible – unconstitutional – undue burden on abortion rights. [Decision at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf%5D

Unfortunately, the debate among the Justices and the decision itself was likely diminished by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February.

In his article “SCOTUS and Abortion: Three Failures and Opportunities for the Pro-Life Movement” (July 1, 2016), Harvard Law student Josh Craddock writes: “There comes a time where gross disregard for human life and for our constitutional order should stir us from docile obedience and impel us to resistance.”

In his article, Craddock criticizes the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and explains how it exposes three failures and opportunities for the pro-life movement.

With respect to the failures and opportunities, he writes:

First, a pro-life strategy of compromise-rather than principle-has failed to convince the public or the courts. This offers the opportunity to refocus our efforts on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. Second, Republican judicial nominations have failed to overturn unconstitutional pro-abortion precedents and have even contributed to them. This offers the opportunity to eschew blind partisanship and to create constructive social tension that prompts political change. And third, our constitutional system has failed to constrain the judiciary. This offers the opportunity for lesser magistrates to resist unjust edicts.

An honest assessment of these failures and opportunities should convince those who are committed to the pro-life cause that the time has come to stop compromising. We must demand that our political leaders end the legally sanctioned killing of unborn children.

A Strategy of Compromise Has Failed

The Hellerstedt decision reaffirmed that any significant impediment to abortion will be struck down under the existing judicial regime, even regulations designed to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare” (a goal that has been embarrassingly adopted by many pro-life leaders). Such regulations, even if upheld, merely serve to sanitize abortion in the public eye. “At least there are no more Gosnells,” the well-intentioned public might say, as the local abortionist with hospital admitting privileges commits the same atrocities legally in a regulated clinic.

Those who are serious about ending abortion need to acknowledge that laboring within the confines of Casey is futile. Hellerstedt proves that approach will never achieve abolition. We cannot satisfy ourselves with petty regulations on abortion that trim the abortion weed while strengthening its root.

Instead, we should seize the opportunity to smash the existing legal paradigm by transforming the cultural and political landscape. The personhood movement is one such example. Traditional wisdom (and Gallup polling) suggested that only 15 to 20 percent of Americans would support a total abortion ban, but more than twice that many actually voted in various states to recognize the personhood of the preborn and ban abortion. In 2006, 44 percent of South Dakota voters supported a total abortion ban. In 2011, 42 percent of Mississippians voted for personhood and against abortion in all cases. And in 2014, 36 percent of Colorado voters supported an initiative to criminalize all fetal homicide, without exceptions for abortion. This is, of course, not the only strategy to end abortion. But it is illustrative of the bold, principled tactics and messaging that will be required to do so.

Instead of relying on vague language about women’s health and safety as they seek to kill their children or on the argument that some preborn children feel pain, we need to refocus the pro-life message on the inherent dignity of the human person from conception to natural death. We must take active steps to protect preborn children by love and by law, without exception or compromise.

Republican Judicial Nominations Have Failed

Justice Kennedy, reprising his role from Casey, joined the Hellerstedt opinion in favor of more expansive abortion access. That shouldn’t surprise us. In 2007, he authored the abortion procedure manual known as Gonzales v. Carhart, which advised abortionists to find “less shocking methods to abort the fetus” and suggested various dismemberment techniques that would skirt the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

We shouldn’t be scammed and scared into voting Republican in order to get conservative Supreme Court justices. While it’s true that the three justices who would return the question of abortion to the voters have been appointed by Republican presidents, it’s also true that Republicans have appointed even more justices who think the Constitution requires abortion. Think of Stevens, Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy. All three justices responsible for the plurality opinion in Casey were appointed by Republican presidents. Color me an extreme skeptic that a President Trump is going to do any better.

Instead of putting our hope in the Republican Party and the Supreme Court, we have the opportunity to increase social tension over child-killing. Human rights movements have the tendency of making opinions and policies irrelevant, as the world’s repudiation of slavery over a century ago makes clear. America did not confront the brutality of slavery until abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison made it inescapable.

Garrison considered constructive social tension to be a vital element of cultural and legal reform. As a non-violent agitator, Garrison was able to clarify the perils of wrong or weak choices in a way that many politicians could not. He pushed the well-intentioned toward firmer statements and action by making complacency unbearable. Garrison understood that abolition had to accomplish a moral revolution before it could effect a political one, for “only an aroused public conscience could persuade legislators to withdraw protection from slavery.”

Following Garrison’s example, we must ensure that there can be no child-killing with tranquility. We must be unrelenting, so that purportedly pro-life candidates, pastors, priests, and persons of influence cannot comfortably coexist with legalized abortion. We must not retreat from voting and politics-far from it. Instead, we should engage with politics in a way that demands principled leadership, especially from Republican politicians. If they won’t provide it, we shouldn’t provide our votes. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Our Constitutional System Has Failed

We are no longer a nation governed by laws rather than by men. As Justice Thomas said in his Hellerstedt dissent (quoting Justice Scalia), “we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.” The way in which the Hellerstedt majority mangled the law to achieve its preferred outcome was transparently contrived and deliberately dishonest.

The Supreme Court has long since undermined its own legitimacy as a fair and neutral arbiter. Last year’s ruling in Obergefell, as well as so many others, have exposed the Court as nothing more than another political branch-a robed oligarchy that has unconstitutionally aggrandized itself through the false doctrine of judicial supremacy and cloaked its unconstrained willfulness in the language of law.

Our Founding Fathers understood that judicial supremacy was incompatible with the preservation of self-government. To “consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, would be “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” When judicial supremacy is combined with an utter disregard for our constitutional text, the “supreme law of the land” becomes nothing more than the fiat of five lawyers.

This naked power grab presents elected and appointed leaders with an opportunity to disregard and resist the Court’s unjust and illegitimate rulings. Although we ought not lightly upend our judicial system, there comes a time when gross disregard for human life and for our constitutional order should stir us from docile obedience and impel us to resistance.

Just as Lincoln denied the force of the Dred Scott decision to settle the question of black citizenship, so too must state governors and other officials who have sworn oaths to uphold our Constitution deny the force of the Supreme Court opinions to settle the question of preborn humanity. Governors in particular should reassert the rightful status of their states in our federal system and take action to protect every innocent human being in their jurisdictions. We should encourage officials to stand against the judiciary’s unlawful and unjust decrees and rally behind those who do.

*** Josh Craddock is a student at Harvard Law School. He formerly served as the vice president of Personhood USA.

Reference: Josh Craddock, “SCOTUS and Abortion: Three Failures and Opportunities for the Pro-Life Movement,” The Witherspoon Institute, The Public Discourse, July 1, 2016. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17284/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute&utm_campaign=f20712aec5-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-f20712aec5-84177661

As We Recognize the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Fetus (face, sucking thumb)

by Diane Rufino, January 22, 2014

On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we take stock of how the high court has repeatedly twisted the Constitution to undermine family values and to negate the benefits of federalism.

More and more we hear people complain of being forced to live their lives according to dictates and mandates by the government that are morally reprehensible to them. More and more we hear entire states suggest that it would be better for their self-interest if they separated from the United States. The values of North Carolina are not the values (thank God!) of New York.  The values of South Carolina are not the values of California. And the values of Texas are not the values of New Jersey. And if the vision of our Founding Fathers, as memorialized in the federal design of government and in the Tenth Amendment, were respected today by the federal government and particularly the Supreme Court, each state would be free to embrace the values that their people chose. We would have 50 different “communities,” each offering their citizens the opportunity to live as they see fit and as would most effectively promote their “pursuit of happiness.”  So, if a family in New York decided that the values in that state were counter-productive to the raising and education of their children, for example, they might have the opportunity to move to another state where conditions and values more closely suit the philosophy that best defines their life.

How did we get this “one-size-fits-all” approach to the several states?  There is only one authority that has the power to do so – the federal government.  The government, through its commandeering of the Court system and its exclusive power to define the provisions and powers listed in the Constitution, has broken down the boundaries that allow each state to remain unique.  The same government that embraces diversity in human beings denies diversity in the individual states. Without a doubt, the Court has used this power to its fullest advantage, not only to centralize more power in its three branches and to weaken the States, but also to engineer a new social order. The new social order has signaled a decline in America. The “one-size-fits-all” approach has caused Americans great frustration because it offers them no alternatives.  In nearly every aspect of their lives, aside from physical address and scenery, people are being told they have only ONE WAY to live their lives. They have to conform to ONE WAY of thinking. Under the guise of tolerance, they are FORCED to embrace policies that offend rights of conscience and offend traditional notions of decency and conduct.

On this 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I thought we might take a look at this case and see how the Court furthered its goal to re-engineer American society and to re-prioritize our national values.

On January 22, 1973, seven non-elected members of the US Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision – a decision that rivals, in utter disgust, the holding of Dred Scott.  Both cases determine (or should I say, undermine) the worth of a class of human beings. But aside from that, the question is this:  Was the issue at stake one for the federal government to decide or one for the States?

The question before the Court was whether the US Constitution embraces the right of a woman to have an abortion. Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane ROE, was a single woman who became pregnant and then sought to have an abortion. Texas law at the time (which dated back to 1854) did not allow a woman to have an abortion and terminate a pregnancy, unless that pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. She sued in order to prevent Dallas Attorney General Henry Wade from enforcing that law and hopefully to invalidate the law. Well, that should be clarified.  She didn’t want to sue.  It was only when two lawyers representing a Womans’ Rights activist group approached her and convinced her to sue and challenge the abortion statute that she agreed to be “their girl.”  The ambitious lawyers argued that McCorvey’s ability to control her fertility should be recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights (thereby safe from government action to violate it, and through the 14th amendment, safe from any state action as well).  In other words, they asked the Court to recognize a woman’s right to control her fertility, even after a child has been created.

Why didn’t anyone argue that she already has the power and the right to control her fertility. It’s called “consent or non-consent to sexual intercourse.”  The power lies with her.  She holds the power to have children – thanks to the Laws of Nature.  And she also holds the power as to when she will have those children.  If she decides to engage in sexual activity with protection and that protection fails, she has the option of immediately addressing the situation.  After all, a fertilized egg doesn’t immediately begin its program to create life. Even after 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg cell still remains a single cell.  Only after approximately 30 hours does it finally begin to divide from one cell into 2 cells.  And then another 15 or so hours after that, it divides again, to yield four cells.  At the end of three days, the conception event is merely a ball of 16 cells. Does that group of 16 cells establish “life”?   (That, fortunately or unfortunately, is not the question of this piece).

Issues of marriage and family are ones rightfully reserved to the States. It has always been so.  The federal government knows this and the justices of the Supreme Court know this too.  But by finding a new provision in the Bill of Rights – one not expressly articulated – the Court was able to make universal policy on abortion. That “invisible” provision is the right to Privacy.  Has anyone read the Bill of Rights lately?  Has anyone found that one listed?  I think if our Founders wanted the bundle of rights embraced by privacy in general, that amendment would have been one of those included.  The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the right to an abortion is one embraced by the Ninth Amendment.  As mentioned above, a woman has always had the right to control her fertility. It’s called consent and non-consent.  That’s why abortion laws have always contained exceptions for cases when the woman has been raped. The right to an abortion is a distinct right.

The bigger issue in Roe v. Wade, as is clear from the decision and later comments by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was the ability of women to compete equally in the workforce.  Women cannot compete equally if they are continually “held back” by an unwanted pregnancy. That was the issue at the heart of Roe v. Wade – not the definition of life or the right to life. The particulars of how they got that issue to the Court is what makes this case so very disturbing.  Womens’ Rights activists used the issue at stake in the case to sacrifice the lives of unborn children to advance their agenda….  The same agenda that the government also felt compelled to promote.

Here are some of the arguments that the supporters of Roe advocated as being vital to a Woman’s Right to Terminate a Pregnancy:  They said the right to an abortion helps to preserve women’s rights, her personal freedom, and her privacy. A denial of the right, they argued, would be condemn women to compulsory motherhood and ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

McCorvey was single at the time of her pregnancy. She was a drug abuser and had left her husband (and two children). After her third pregnancy (at issue in the lawsuit), which ended in the child’s birth (because of the length of the case), she gave up the child for adoption and went on to become a lesbian for awhile.  It’s nice that such people who have such a problem conforming their conduct are the ones that dominate our courts and are responsible for the social engineering that has defined the new America.  Where is the notion that laws are supposed to promote good and productive behavior and discourage bad and unproductive behavior?

How sad that our nation’s highest court was able to “stretch” and re-define the US Constitution to find rights for women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy but continues to refuse to find the same latitude in the Constitution to find that an unborn child has any rights at all.  (Sure the decision holds that the right to an abortion is not absolute and it has to be balanced against the State’s countervailing interests in preserving the health of the woman and in protecting the “potential” life of the unborn child, but for all practical purposes and in light of subsequent cases that emphatically state that obstacles to a woman’s right to an abortion on demand are unconstitutional, the right to an abortion is absolute).  How sad that we have to read accounts of fully-formed babies being aborted and terminated. (that is, KILLED). Termination is what you do to an employee or a contract.  Murder and killing is what you do to a living human being that intentionally deprives it of its life.  How sad that we have to be a country divided among people who value life all life and those who value life except that which grows inside a woman that happens to burden her ambitions or complicate her life.

As it stands today, every woman in the United States has the legal right to obtain an abortion in all 50 states, through all nine months of pregnancy, for virtually any reason at all.  After all, the autonomous decision to have such is built into the Constitution.  And the 14th Amendment incorporates the rights as against the States as well (even though the 14thAmendment requires each incorporated right to be one that is historically rooted in our American notion of ordered liberty).  All of this is the legacy of Roe v. Wade.  As John T. Noonan, senior circuit judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote: “Roe v. Wademay stand as the most radical decision ever issued by the Supreme Court.”

If the Court had only the backbone and conviction to respect the Tenth Amendment and the issues that traditionally belong to the individual states, the issue of abortion could have been decided by the individual states.  Chances are that New York and other liberal states would embrace such a right (at the expense of the helpless unborn) while the states populated by people who respect all life would likely take a different approach….  They might likely reserve abortion in instances when the life of the mother is certainly at serious risk, or they might have programs of adoption for those who are unwilling to keep the child they give birth to, or they might have a robust Church communities that develop programs to care for the children of unwanted pregnancies, or maybe, just maybe, hey might have aggressive public school programs and social programs that EMPHASIZE and promote abstinence.

The point is that the people of each state have a right – a reserved right – to determine issues of social policy within their borders. Each state has the right to guide and determine the kind of citizen it would like to live within its borders (that’s why education is so important as an state initiative) and the kinds of communities (absent any glaring true constitutional violations) to support them.

So, on this 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we have to ponder the consequences of the decision.  We have legally declared that a class of human beings has no legal rights (as Dred Scott did to African-Americans) and we have condemned millions to torture and death, simply for the opportunity for women to compete equally with men in the workforce.  As George Bush once said: “The fingers and toes and beating hearts that we can see on an unborn child’s ultrasound come with something that we cannot see… a soul.”  We have to be disgusted at both the decision itself and the legal wrangling that our highest court used to usurp state authority and further create the “one-size-fits-all” degenerate social society that we have now.