(LifeSiteNews) — J.K. Rowling, the British author of Harry Potter who has become, in a weird twist of culture war fate, a primary target of the LGBT movement, has put her money where her mouth is. After leveraging her fame for several years now in defence of female dissidents of the reigning transgender ideology—and in defence of female-only spaces—she is now using her fortune to open a women-only sexual violence support service in Edinburgh, Scotland called Beira’s Place. “As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know how important it is that survivors have the option of women-centred and women-delivered care at such a vulnerable time,” she stated. “Beira’s Place will offer an increase in capacity for services in the area and will, I hope, enable more women to process and recover from their trauma.”
The founders of the center noted that there has been a “demand from female survivors for a woman-only service.” That demand has been driven by a surge of biological men identifying as women showing up in what were once female-only spaces, often traumatizing the sexual assault survivors who had sought refuge in these centres after experiencing horrific things at the hands of men. In Scotland in particular, trans activists took over Rape Crisis Scotland with chief executive Mridul Wadhwa—a man identifying as a woman and the CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre—stating that women needed to essentially get over it: “Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well…But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”
READ: Women who call out sexual deviants face threats like drag queen mimicking rape of conservative mother
Labour MP Stella Creasy has threatened to table an amendment to the Government’s upcoming Bill of Rights to give women the “fundamental right to an abortion”.
Ms Creasy has already been instrumental in imposing abortion on Northern Ireland, promoting DIY abortion, and banning pro-life vigils around abortion clinics. Now she wants to remove any restrictions on abortion. She even wants decisions on abortion law to be taken out of the hands of elected politicians by making it a “right”.
Sign this petition calling on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to resist any attempt to make abortion a right.
There is no right to abortion in international law. None of the nine core treaties of the United Nations recognises abortion as a human right (including the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women).
Instead, several human rights instruments recognise the right to life of children before birth. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states: “... the child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth...”
There can be no right to end the life of an innocent unborn child.
The UK already has some of the most permissive abortion legislation in Europe. A right to abortion would make the situation here even worse. Creating an absolute “right” to abortion would logically mean removing any restrictions. The worst implications of this could include:
• The removal of any gestational limits, allowing abortion up to birth
• Abortion based on the gender of the baby
• The removal of medical safeguards, including the involvement of doctors
• Erosion of conscience rights for medical professionals
Sign this petition to tell Mr Sunak not to make abortion a right.
The overturn of a Court decision in the United States has no direct implications for abortion law in the UK, which is regulated by Acts of Parliament. The regulation of a controversial issue such as abortion should lie with democratically elected MPs, not the courts. Robert Buckland MP, the former Justice Secretary, has warned that enshrining abortion as a right “risks bringing our courts into the political arena as in the United States”.
Tell Mr Sunak to stand up for parliamentary democracy and a true understanding of human rights, and resist any attempt to make abortion a right.
And so J.K. Rowling has used her wealth to found a center that helps women in their pain and suffering, safe with other women. Considering the last few years, it should not be surprising that even establishing a rape crisis centre for rape victims earns her condemnation, but here we are. The Independent ran an editorial by a trans activist asking whether this act of philanthropy could be the end of her. It is titled: “Could JK Rowling’s latest venture be the final nail in the coffin for her reputation?” While this center may seem to be a good thing, Ryan Coogan wrote, the truth is that “it seems instead to be a shallow attempt to shield herself from further criticism by doing something which is nominally good, but in reality actually further segregates and disenfranchises vulnerable people.”
READ: NPR gives positive review to trans activist’s novel that fantasizes about JK Rowling’s violent death
That is how a trans activist responds to a woman setting up a center for victimized women and declining to allow biological men into this space in order to protect those women and to prevent them from reliving their trauma or being revictimized. And Coogan goes further:
But by closing its doors to the trans community, in my view, it instead becomes a huge step backwards for equality and a monument to hate, instead of the valuable service it could have been. I’m sure I’ll get some pushback for saying this about a service designed to help women (which in either scenario, I have no doubt it will). But it’s like opening a whites-only orphanage; what, would you rather there not be an orphanage at all? What did orphans ever do to you?
Yeah, you read that right. Coogan actually compares a rape crisis center serving victims of sexual assault to a “whites-only orphanage” and calls it “a monument to hate.” Incidentally, that last phrase describes Coogan’s column pretty accurately. I think historian Tom Holland summed it up pretty well: “This ‘latest venture’ being a women’s refuge for survivors of domestic & sexual abuse? What a total monster.”
Do not think for one moment that any compromise with the transgender movement will be sufficient short of a total transformation of society, enforced by law. Every time anyone opposes anything on their agenda—even defending female-only places for victims of sexual trauma to recover—the masks come off, and they tell on themselves. They want everything, and they couldn’t care less what happens to the vulnerable who are in their way.