Help CCBR expose the truth about abortion: LifeFunder
(LifeSiteNews) — It is disappointing, but should not be surprising, that the libertarians over at Reason have come out against overturning Roe v. Wade. After all, nothing is free — somebody has to pay for it. In the case of sexual liberties, it is preborn children. Men get sex; women get abortions. That’s how it works.
Earlier this month, Reason published a long column by Elizabeth Nolan Brown detailing a laundry list of reasons that, from her allegedly libertarian point of view, Roe should remain the law of the land. Brown writes her entire essay as if she has never heard the pro-life position before (which she probably hasn’t). To summarize: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins. Science tells us when a new human life begins. Brown ignores all of this, and pretends that abortion is about a what, rather than a who.
She says that:
Abortion should remain legal because it is more compassionate to kill disabled or special needs children in the womb than to allow them to be born. Brown makes clear that abortion is, in the case of such children, generally more compassionate than adoptions. She doesn’t quite call them “useless eaters,” but she comes close, citing ethicists that believe not killing disabled children in the womb might actually be unethical.
In the aftermath of the leak of the Supreme Court majority opinion draft overruling Roe v. Wade, lawless vandals backed by the abortion lobby and pro-abortion politicians have launched riots and violent attacks on pro-life entities across America, from pregnancy centers to churches, and even targeted Justices' homes.
This widespread, organized effort not only sets a dangerous standard for how groups and individuals may opt to stage demonstrations going forward, but begs the question of how the pro-abortion crowd would behave if and when the Supreme Court officially overturns Roe later this summer.
And, worst of all, the White House has largely turned a blind eye to these riots, with Joe Biden -- who at one time claimed to be personally opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith -- now acting as the foremost advocate for unfettered abortion access in America.
Biden's nonexistent response must be addressed, and the White House needs to know that the American people demand better from their supposed "leader."
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition calling on Joe Biden to stop beating around the bush and finally issue a formal statement condemning the violent riots and attacks on pro-life institutions across our country in the wake of the leaked Supreme Court majority opinion draft overturning Roe v. Wade.
Over Mother's Day weekend, pro-abortion attacks broke out across America, with increasingly depraved activists targeting pregnancy centers, pro-life advocacy organizations, and churches with either disruptive demonstrations or, in some cases, vandalism and outright violence.
Among the most barbaric occurrences was the vicious attack on Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-life group headquartered in Madison, where vandals threw a Molotov cocktail into an office window, started a fire on one of its walls, and left a threatening graffiti message reading "If abortions aren't safe then you aren't either."
Review a FULL LIST of other appalling attacks HERE.
They even descended upon the homes of Supreme Court Justices like Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who appear poised to formally issue the final blow to Roe v. Wade in the coming weeks, after publishing a map with their private addresses.
The case, which was decided nearly 50 years ago in 1973, saw members of the bench fabricate a constitutional "right" to abortion, depriving individual states from crafting their own laws to protect life. However, should Roe, as expected, be overturned, the matter of abortion would be returned to the states, where it always belonged, giving lawmakers the ability to propose legislation that would either place strong restrictions on the procedure or, in some cases, ban it outright.
And while, of course, freedom of speech must be protected and defended for all Americans, demonstrations that devolve into vandalism, rioting, the use of intimidation tactics against members of the judiciary (or anyone else, for that matter), or violence in any form must NEVER be tolerated.
But the White House seems to be taking a different approach...
It wasn't until Monday afternoon that Press Secretary Jen Psaki finally acknowledged the threat posed to Supreme Court Justices by out-of-control pro-abotion activists, claiming that "judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety."
This is true, but it took Psaki an entire week to make any semblance of a definitive statement about the White House's position on this urgent matter. In fact, Psaki previously refused to discourage the targeting of Justices' homes when asked, insisting that pro-abortion groups were staging "peaceful protests" instead; she even failed to condemn the leak itself -- an unprecedented breach of trust and rejection of institutional norms that could permanently damage the standing of the court and its ability to function as an apolitical body.
And, of course, Joe Biden, himself, has been virtually silent on the matter, failing to effectively speak out against these riots and reassure the American people that those who seek to vandalize property and perpetrate violence will be held legally accountable for their actions by the Department of Justice.
This is entirely unacceptable behavior from a commander-in-chief, and as political allies like Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (rather ironically) incite insurrection by labeling the Supreme Court's pending decision a "call to arms," the American people must demand that Joe Biden clarify where he stands, and whose side he's really on.
The rule of law must be upheld and applied equally, and that means calling out radical anti-life rioters and ensuring there are consequences for their violent outbursts and destruction of property across the country.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition calling on Joe Biden to condemn these rioters, and direct the U.S. Department of Justice to take action that will hold them accountable for their actions under the law.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'‘Rise up, fight back’: Pro-abortion protesters descend upon Justice Alito’s house over imminent abortion ruling' (LifeSiteNews)
**Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Abortion should remain legal because women could be wrongly convicted (for miscarriage etc.) and doctors could be subject to more government oversight (which, for a certain sort of libertarian, is always a bad thing). This point, of course, is premised on the idea that abortion is either morally neutral or, as per her last point, morally good. There is no recognition of the fact that abortion ends the life of a developing human being.
Abortion should remain legal because banning it would “grow government,” not just with regard to support for disabled children (and more dependents of the state) or oversight of the medical profession, but because laws targeting the distribution of abortion pills could, Brown claims, become “a new war on drugs.” (Yes, if people are buying drugs with the express purpose of poisoning people, then we should do something about that.)
Abortion should remain legal to prevent censorship — specifically with regard to banning information about where to get abortions in states where abortion has become legal. In short, she worries that if preborn children have their right to life (or, to put it a more libertarian way, the right not to be killed) that there would be “less freedom in other realms, too.”
Finally, Brown says that abortion should remain legal because if Roe falls, there will be more political brawls about abortion on the state level. This, in a stiff contest, might be her dumbest point, considering the fact that Roe has utterly toxified federal politics now for decades and transformed America’s political and partisan landscape.
I am not a libertarian, but to be fair to conservatives of that persuasion, plenty of libertarians hold pro-life views based on the “do no harm principle.” Congressman Ron Paul, for example, is famously pro-life, as is his son Senator Rand Paul. Being ideologically libertarian does not necessarily lead to the sort of lethal reasoning put forward here by Reason.
Interestingly, one pro-life Republican had the chance to respond to arguments similar to Brown’s at a U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that banning abortion would hurt low-income Black women in particular, stating, “I believe that eliminating the right of women to make a decision about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades. Roe v. Wade< and access to reproductive health care, including abortion, helped lead to increased labor force participation.”
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina responded, “I’ll just simply say that, as a guy raised by a Black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator … Did you say that ending the life of a child is good for the labor force participation rate? To the guy who was raised by a single mom who worked long hours to keep us out of poverty — I think people can disagree on the issue of being pro-life or pro-abortion — but, in the end, I think framing it in the context of labor force participation is, just feels callous to me. I think finding a way to have a debate around abortion in a meeting for the economic stability of our country is harsh.”
I hope the libertarians at Reason are listening.
Help CCBR expose the truth about abortion: LifeFunder