I am constantly amazed when I listen to the wide variety of comments that politicians put forth. You know as well as I do that their goal is to garner votes, win a place in history and, if they do win, do what they please, which is often not what they promised. I guess this has been a problem for as long as there have been politicians. But sometimes I marvel at the clever way many politicians simply ignore some questions.
My reason for putting forth my two cents on this is a little quote from one of our Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Unafraid to align herself publicly with abortion rights supporters, Justice Ginsburg recently appeared at a gathering of the Veteran Feminists of America.
Following her speech, she was asked a few questions. One of them is of critical importance. Here is a transcript of the question and Justice Ginsburg's response:
To a second questioner who asked whether lawyers should work to recast the legal basis of reproductive freedom from the right to privacy set out in Roe to one based on the thirteenth amendment against slavery or the fourteenth amendment, Justice Ginsburg said:
But I think the notion of a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course. . . has come more and more into the. . . more recent cases.
I think lawyers have argued that – in the Casey case, for example. It's not privacy, in the sense that "This is something I want to do and hide from everybody, and, seal myself in a cocoon." It's autonomy (which) is the idea; it's a woman's right to choose.
And I have criticized the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade – not, of course, for the result. But that decision is heavily oriented to doctors. It's the doctor's choice as much as the woman's that the government shouldn't regulate what doctors decide is best for the patient.
To my mind, this is a chilling viewpoint, and you can be sure it is being carefully considered by many, if not all, pro-abortion political action groups. I think the reason is quite simple. If a bill such as the Freedom of Choice Act were to pass in the next Congress, the entire meaning of Roe v. Wade would be altered, and in a sense, Congress would have redefined how abortion is viewed in the public sphere, particularly in law.
As a matter of fact, organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America have made it a point to tell their supporters that "the pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act – a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."
Take special note of that word: CODIFY!
The 13th Amendment prohibited slavery everywhere within U.S. jurisdiction and codified that prohibition into law. So too, if FOCA were to become the law of the land, abortion could not be limited in any way because it would become a permanent right, codified into law.
Justice Ginsburg's recent statement is more than just a coincidence, in my opinion. I think that Justice Ginsburg's view is held by many in the pro-abortion movement these days, and that if the proper questions are not asked in this current election cycle, the way abortion is viewed under the law could change dramatically.
But try as I might, so far I have not found any indication that a certain question has been asked of political candidates – one that frames the issue the way I think it should be addressed. I will give you that question after providing the background for it, because I believe in setting the stage before requesting action.
Let us begin by accepting the fact that we have black genocide occurring in America under the guise of "freedom of choice." Minority mothers are pressed into aborting their children in record numbers. And we find none other than organizations like Planned Parenthood and their ilk leading the effort.
Commentators have explained to all of us precisely what the facts are. Even though a mere 13 percent of America's population is black, 37 percent of all abortions are committed on black babies. As astounding and tragic as this is, most politicians are silent about it. As a recent Washington Times editorialist opined, "Abortion is a tragedy regardless of the ethnic or racial composition of the victim. But when a specific population is targeted for elimination, it is an abomination. Congress should stiffen its moral spine."
But will Congress develop a spine in the coming years? Or will elected officials instead continue bowing down to the Supreme Court's power and doing all they can to enshrine abortion in other ways as well – to placate the vile few who scream that abortion for any reason should always be a sacred right?
What would abortion statistics look like if there were no legal way to protect expectant mothers and their preborn children from the "right" to abort the flesh of their own flesh?
Would it be racism of a different sort, disguised by human rights rhetoric? Could it be possible that those still favoring a eugenic solution to mankind's problems would use something like the Freedom of Choice Act to lock in a constitutional "right" to abort children based on genetic analysis, skin color or other factors of ethnicity? Could such a law enable a "purification" of the citizenry?
I have no answers to these questions because I do not have a crystal ball. However, I do believe that every candidate for public office should be asked this very simple, but critically important question: Do you believe that a human being is a person from the instant of his or her creation and that the law should protect each and every person without exception?
Only those who answer this question in the affirmative will work to challenge the injustices perpetrated by the Supreme Court and enabled by the silence of spineless members of the congressional and executive branches of government. They are also the ones who will lead the charge to end the killing in general.
We will not be able to identify these principled individuals, however, if the right question is never asked. Set aside all your voting records, partisan preferences, mail-in comment forms and polling calls, and look at what is at stake. The future of humanity, civility and all that is enshrined in natural law is what is at stake. And nobody is asking the right question.
