If you thought Roe v. Wade itself led to discord and division, just wait until it’s gone. –The New York Times Editorial Board
It’s been a week since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked. Since then, churches and pro-life pregnancy centers have been vandalized, one pregnancy center was bombed, and the Supreme Court Justices have been doxed. There are protests going on in front of the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But the New York Times de-emphasized these stories, or they were not highlighted on their main page.
There is a crucial difference between the laws that prohibited intermarriage between blacks and whites, and the Roe v. Wade ruling. With every abortion, there is always a third person involved: A defenseless, tiny, living and vulnerable human being who cannot voice objection and is silenced forever simply because of his or her age, size, sex, disability, and location. Not because the unborn child is any less human than you or I.
Miscegenation laws were wrong and discriminated against black Americans. But legal abortion kills black Americans, and all of the 63 million unborn people victimized by Roe v. Wade. Non-Hispanic black American women have the highest abortion rate in the United States.
This explanation is not the way late-term abortionist Dr. Lisa Harris described her experience as she dissected a living, breathing infant in the second trimester of pregnancy. Harris was pregnant when she committed the abortion, and wrote this journal article in 2008:
Harris then goes on to say how she felt a sudden “thump, thump” in her uterus, which was her own unborn baby kicking and that “tears were streaming from my eyes.” She described her emotional reaction as a “brutally visceral response.”
However, Lisa Harris continued killing babies in abortions. There is a disconnect with what she is doing and what she is experiencing in her gut. She didn’t get the message from G-d that she was committing murder with every abortion she performed.
In response to Justice Alito’s draft, New York Times opinion journalist Maureen Dowd wrote a remarkable column with a juicy title: “Marilyn Monroe v. Samuel Alito.” The article has nothing to do with Monroe (I wish it did, I’m a major Marilyn fan) but is the perfection of pro-abortion gaslighting, replete with innuendos as facts.
Ms. Dowd says of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
Those who were not born or not old enough to remember Justice Thomas’ confirmation hearings should know that he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill, a lawyer who worked for Justice Thomas at the U.S. Department of Education. Hill’s defense was pathetic and caused a national stir when she alleged under oath that Justice Thomas asked her why there were pubic hairs in his Coke bottle. Incredible, right? But the left believed her. Oh, and Anita Hill continued to work for Justice Thomas for years and never filed a formal complaint against him for harassment, until his Supreme Court confirmation hearings came up.
Justice Thomas was right when he said the entire fiasco was a “high tech lynching.” It was a libelous character assassination then, and it continues today.
But there’s more. Ms. Dowd calls it “outrageous” that “five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.” Isn’t that what happened in 1973 when seven unelected justices—all men—decided women can kill their babies?
Dowd further states that the conservative justices can be compared to the “holier-than-thou preacher” who wants to “turn America into Saudi Arabia.” Perhaps Ms. Dowd isn’t aware that we are one of only six countries on the planet that allows abortion up to birth, and those other countries include North Korea, China, and Vietnam. Is that where she wants American jurisprudence to hang out?
The framers of the U.S. Constitution would be horrified at what has happened to America—the fact that 63 million unborn babies were slaughtered for choice and that high-paid columnists that represent New York’s newspaper of record glorify the grisly trade.
But it wasn’t always that way. An article from the New York Times archives published on August 23rd 1871 spoke out against abortion. Aptly entitled, “The Evil of the Age,” the Times referred to abortion as “Slaughter of the Innocents.”
The Times column conferred praise on the “fearless and eminent of the clergy.”
The 19th century New York Times had more insights into G-d, medicine, morality and sin than their journalists have today.
NY Times Editorial Board, “America Is Not Ready for the End of Roe v. Wade,” The New York Times, 6 May 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/roe-v-wade-constitution.html?searchResultPosition=1
Block, Alison, “Why I Learned to Perform Second-Trimester Abortions for a Post-Roe America,” New York Times, 6 May 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/abortion-provider-second-trimester-roe-v-wade.html?searchResultPosition=1
Lisa H Harris (2008) Second Trimester Abortion Provision: Breaking the
Silence and Changing the Discourse, Reproductive Health Matters, 16:sup31, 74-81, DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(08)31396-2
Maureen Dowd, “Marilyn Monroe v. Samuel Alito,” New York Times, 7 May 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/07/opinion/abortion-supreme-court-puritanism.html
“The Evil of the Age,” New York Times, August 23rd 1871, https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:4bcc16a6-5f37-3f82-81c7-81a18552bc39© Bonnie Chernin
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.