Obama’s most recent nominee to the D.C. Court of Appeals is the latest in a long line of radicals deemed worthy enough to get a White House seal of approval. The nominee, Georgetown Law professor Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, is an excellent example of the level of absurdity with which the administration seems comfortable.
Lest we forget, Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke came out of obscurity to become a feminist star who paraded around America touting Obama’s support for so-called reproductive rights. So it should not really surprise anyone to learn that, like Fluke, Pillard is radical to the core, hence the reason why she suits Obama’s penchant for pandering to culture-of-death zealots.
As Family Research Council president Tony Perkins opines, “Unfortunately for Americans, the Senate won’t have to dig too deep to uncover some of Pillard’s shockers. Among some of her greatest hits, the former deputy assistant attorney general argues that abortion is necessary to help ‘free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.’ As if her militant feminism wasn’t apparent enough, she takes the opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the abortion-contraception mandate as ‘reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.’”
The level of disdain this woman has for motherhood can only be exceeded by her apparent fascination with divorcing the female gender from any semblance of dedication to that proud profession. This is clear when one reads her Georgetown Law article on reproductive rights in which she states, “We must eschew that shell game because the truth is that reproductive rights are important both for the reasons that the Constitution recognizes liberty rights to privacy and bodily integrity and for the reasons that it recognizes the right to sex equality. Bringing into the picture issues beyond abortion helps to show the close and mutually reinforcing relationship between sex equality and reproductive rights.”
Pillard’s consistent rebuke of true femininity is troubling on so many levels. She represents a mindset which is representative of the ever more popular perception that a woman’s right to become anything but a wife and mother is really where it’s at!
After 40 years of decriminalized abortion—not to mention ready access to contraception, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood—there is a descending sense of mystery when one is considering all that is beautiful about human sexuality and the gift of a child. The reproductive rights cop-out has for the most part redefined the legal framework for protecting human rights and all that this entails for the individual before as well as after birth. Left in the wake of this abdication of truth and justice are the artifacts of judicial integrity that at one time defined the once honorable legal profession.
To be clear, the phrase “conscription into maternity” is another way of saying that motherhood is a death sentence for women. It is the same as saying that the female who thought she should cherish the ideals of marriage and family is in need of an attitude correction.
Is there any better way to destroy the true meaning of family and “its responsibility for the building of a more just society?”
Think about it.