So, the Democrats, unable to run on Obama’s economic record, have decided that their big winning issue is abortion.
Speakers like Newark mayor Cory Booker, NARAL Pro Choice America’s Nancy Keenan, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, and everyone’s favorite birth control whineypants Sandra Fluke tell the rest of us that, in essence, “If you don’t support abortion, you don’t love women.”
It is not just the admission of defeat or utter lack of political imagination that this reflects on the part of the Obama administration. Not the blatant deceit. Nor even the diminished value of human life generally. (Because while abortion advocates mock abortion foes by pointing to microscopic zygotes floating in plasma, the fact is that they defend the practice of killing fully-formed, full-term babies in the third trimester. And they want the rest of us to pay for it. Read the Democrat platform.)
I am not even referring to the fact that they paint all women with the same victim’s brush (which even some Democrat women abhor)
It is what the Democrats say about men that I find so revolting – and so infrequently challenged.
What should become clear to anyone who listens to the “war on women” crowd is how much of the Democrat platform is based upon hatred of men. Particularly men who actually care for women and children – meaning those who respect them, treat them well, and do their level best to keep them all alive.
Liberals are quick to demonize men who reject abortion as coarse, knuckle-dragging oppressors; brutes who want to keep women “barefoot and pregnant.” Many men chafe under these false and slanderous accusations, but are silent in the face of the harridans who scream at them to shut up because they do not have a uterus. So it is up to the women who love these men – and are loved by them – to come to their defense.
Liberal women preach all the time about sexual equality. They would have the rest of us believe that their views are more enlightened. As, presumably, are those of the men they admire. But their actions betray them, as is abundantly clear this week. Abortion rights have become the new refuge for scoundrels, and it is liberal women who have enshrined them there.
In the past three weeks, much has been made of Missouri Congressman Todd Akin’s comment about “legitimate rape.” His observation was scientifically unfounded and ignorant. But conservatives denounced the remark, even to the point of trying to persuade Akin to leave the race. Akin’s sin was to misspeak. But the last time I checked, no one had ever accused Representative Akin of sexual misconduct, rape, wrongful death, or murder.
Contrast this with the men liberal women have trotted out for us the last two days:
The beloved Bill (“You’d better put some ice on that”) Clinton is a serial adulterer who conducted sexual escapades with a young White House intern in the Oval Office. He was accused of rape and sexual harassment. But none of that matters, because he’ll tell women just how much he wants them to be able to have their abortions.
A very married Ted Kennedy took a young woman out on a drive, drove off a bridge in a drunken state, and left her in the car to die. He took hours to report it. But liberal women don’t care about that, either, because the Catholic “Lion of the Senate” stood up for abortion.
Let’s see: a videotaped tribute to Ted Kennedy and a keynote address from Bill Clinton. What’s on the slate for tonight? A slide show featuring Anthony Weiner?
Democrats hail themselves as the party of rationality, of science, of intellect. And yet so much of what they espouse is demonstrably false (“It’s just a clump of cells”) or sociologically dysfunctional. Liberals are losing the abortion battle not because of a “war on women” by men, but by virtue of a war on ignorance by technology. Technological advances like ultrasound have made the humanity of the unborn child visible to everyone -- unfortunately for hard-core advocates like Nancy Keenan, who defended ignorance on Tuesday, saying, “[N]o woman considering an abortion should be forced to have an ultrasound against her will.” (Fine and dandy, then – can we get rid of all the other “informed consent” legislation for other medical procedures?)
Liberals are losing the abortion battle despite refusing to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood was founded by an unabashed eugenist, and that – somehow, in a stroke of bizarre coincidence - abortion has decimated the black population. Blacks represent 13% of the population, but 35% of all abortions in this country. Liberals rip on Wal-Mart, but defend Planned Parenthood, which puts huge numbers of their clinics in poor neighborhoods not because it gives poor women access to “health care,” but because that’s where the market is.
Liberals are losing the abortion battle, because while Sandra Fluke accuses Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan of advocating policies that would force women to “die in emergency rooms,” many of us know that women die in emergency rooms now, butchered by abortionists like the ghastly Kermit Gosnell.
Men who stand up for the unborn children of black women, or who call for higher standards for medical care are called racists and bigots. Yes, they would like women contemplating abortion to see their unborn children, and know what they are doing. Yes, they would like it if the number of abortions was reduced as a result. This is a bad thing?
Meanwhile, we see the face of the real racists in abortionist Ashutosh Ron Virmani (right there in Charlotte, by the way) who calls his victims, “ugly black babies.”
Cory Booker’s disingenuous snark last night was profoundly disappointing, not least because he has shown himself on numerous occasions to be a powerful and selfless leader and an independent voice of reason. Where is Mayor Booker’s outrage about this? Where are the black men in positions of political power who will call this out?
Instead, we get Touré, who tweets “Girls! Get your abortions NOW, in case the Republicans win!”
Just what is the definition of male honor among liberal women? They will support a politician unfaithful to his wife, as long as he supports abortion. They will support a politician guilty of abuse of power and sexual harassment, as long as he supports abortion. They will support a politician accused of rape, as long as he supports abortion. They will support a politician responsible for the death of a woman, as long as he supports abortion.
It is not that there haven’t always been men who are abusers and sleazeballs – there always have been and there always will be. But there was a time when we did not hold their behavior up as admirable. There was a time when mothers and grandmothers taught young women to look for an honorable man. There was a time when we valued and appreciated and held up for emulation a man who wanted, defended, and protected his own children. Now, liberals castigate him as an anti-female pig, while the chumbucket who defends abortion because his personal life requires abortion is heralded as a champion of women’s “rights.”
These are the men we’re supposed to admire? Cads, exhibitionists, rapists, tortfeasors, and murderers? Democrats now call themselves “progressives.” This is progress?
There are many honorable men who legitimately do not feel that they can weigh in on the issue of an unplanned pregnancy. This is understandable. But there are also many honorable men who oppose abortion because they believe in the sanctity of human life. They are not selfish brutes. They do not defend rape, or view women as slaves or playthings for their pleasure, to be cast aside thereafter. They do not view their own children as expendable. They have every intention of living up to the responsibilities that those children require of them. And they do live up to these expectations. To say otherwise is false, insulting, and profoundly deceitful. To say it while showcasing sexual predators is absurd to the point of surreal.
It is all the more incongruous at a convention to renominate a man who has always been, by all accounts, a loving son and grandson, a devoted and faithful husband, an adoring father of two beautiful girls. It stands in stark contrast to the warm tribute that Michelle Obama gave for her husband.
But notwithstanding his personal virtues, Obama has refused to take a position that would require real political courage. While pro-life men are accused of “extreme” views, Obama refused even to support a bill which would have required medical care for babies who survived abortion, and who were being thrown in trash cans, or left to die in laundry rooms. When asked when a baby should get human rights, Obama demurred that the question was “above his pay grade.” He even went so far as to say that if one of his own daughters got pregnant, he would not want her “punished with a baby.” It is a sad day when a man views his own grandchild as a punishment.
This has to be the absolute nadir of the American Democrat party. It was bad enough when abortion was tacitly whispered behind the scenes to be a tragic necessity. Now it is front-and-center. The cornerstone of the Democrat view of liberty, the primary plank in the Democrat platform, the most visible manifestation of our achievements as a people is a woman’s “right” to destroy her own child, a man’s willingness to stand by and watch her do it with pride, and the power to compel other people to pay for it. Everything else – the economy, foreign policy, even God – takes a back seat.
That is tragic.
Laura Hollis is an Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame, where she teaches entrepreneurship and business law. She is the author of the forthcoming publication, “Start Up, Screw Up, Scale Up: What Government Can Learn From the Best Entrepreneurs,” © 2014. Her opinions are her own, and do not reflect the position of the university. Follow her on Twitter: @LauraHollis61.
Rand Paul on NSA: “I Believe What You Do on Your Cell Phone is None of Their Damn Business” | Daniel Doherty