Michelle Goldberg has a piece out in the Daily Beast touting victory for the women of Mississippi over the defeat on November 8 of the Personhood Amendment proposition. “Mississippi Women Win” is the title of her piece, and it illustrates a very important point. Michelle contends that the women in Mississippi, and probably women all across America, in her view, have won something – the right to continue legally killing their unborn children. She is right about that. However, and quite disturbingly, Michelle seems over satisfied with this.
It was the latest bit of evidence that the American right has overestimated public support for its agenda.
Our “agenda” is one of life, and of recognizing the value of life, that human life in fact begins at conception, which is a scientific fact, and has been for some time now. Our “agenda” is to provide legal protection for the unborn, from those women that have been intentionally misled and outright lied to by Planned Parenthood, NARAl, NOW, etc. that killing their unborn child is nothing more than having a mole removed.
Until now, most attacks on reproductive rights have been aimed at the margins, eroding Roe v. Wade bit by bit. They’ve affected minors, or poor women, or women needing late-term abortions in situations that most people imagine they’ll never be in.
Notice Michelle Goldberg refers to abortion as “reproductive rights”. It’s a bit of sleazy and thoughtless manipulation of reality on Michelle’s part. What does “reproductive rights” conjure in the minds of anyone? In other words, if one knows little or knowing about abortion, does abortion even come to mind when they hear “reproductive rights”? Because what Michelle is conveying is that ‘attacks on reproductive rights” are really attacks on the “rights” that women have to kill their unborn children. But if she said it that way, more women would become suspicious. For all of Michelle’s feminism, she is intent on keeping women in the dark, and uneducated, when it comes to abortion.
She further says that the attack on Roe vs. Wade has “affected minors”. How? In other words, a “minor” who engages in sex and becomes pregnant, a “minor” who desires to kill the child rather than have the courage to face the consequences of her actions – to be a woman – ought to be free simply dispense of the “mistake”? And we should accept that?
Of “poor women”, Michelle laments that even they are not immune from pro-life responders; that poverty is justification for killing an unborn child. And who pays for the abortion when a woman is too poor to pay for it herself? Obviously, we the taxpayers are the ones Michelle and other pro-abortion supporters want paying the price for irresponsibility; a most monstrous lust she and they have in seeing us pay for the killing of an unborn child.
Of “the need for late term abortion”, Michelle does not understand, or is too ignorant to know that there are no “situations most people” can’t “imagine” to justify the killing of a child so late in pregnancy. Unless there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother, which, in this day and age, is extremely rare, there are “no women needing late term abortions”, as Michelle passionately, but misguidedly, claims.
Amendment 26 was different. It would have interfered with the health care of middle-class women and crime victims, and even the most conservative voters in the country weren’t willing to do that.
How, perchance, does not having an abortion “interfere” with “the health care of middle class women and crime victims”? In other words, what Michelle is really conveying here is her feminist belief that pregnancy and motherhood itself, is an interference with middle class women, and that having a child “interferes” with a woman’s status as middle class; that having an abortion is merely a part of “healthcare” which presumably all middle class women ought to have the right to enjoy; that for a woman of “middle class” status to not have an abortion jeopardizes her “middle class” status, and might drive her into poverty. So far as the “health” aspect goes, our healthcare system in America is the best in the world. If a woman has a health issue, and is pregnant, unless it becomes legitimately life threatening for her to continue the pregnancy, there are solutions to protect both mother and child.
Of “crime victims”, Michelle can only be referring to rape. Is a child less of a human being if it is created by, and a product of, rape? We who are pro-life contend that even in the case of rape, though we acknowledge the violence involved, the unborn ought to be protected from violence itself. Women who cannot emotionally or psychologically care for a child, knowing it was created out of lust rather than love, ought not be forced to keep the child, but neither ought she have the right to simply discard it, throw it away as if the child was something not human, something not alive.
Of “most conservative voters”, Michelle is as well wrong on that count. “Most conservative voters” in Mississippi and in America are staunchly pro-life. Unfortunately, it appears that the language in Proposition 26 was too vague and misled people into believing its passage would have created more uncertainly than clarity. Perhaps it was all the pro-abortion activists that had descended on Mississippi as locusts descend on a field of corn, or wheat, and ate alive that uncertainty of Mississippi voters yet unsure whether this Personhood Amendment reached too far into the lives of women.
So, back to work on redrawing a new proposition that, it is hoped, will be unmistakeably clear in its language and its meaning. If the pro-life movement in Mississippi has learned anything about this defeat, it ought to have learned that language, clarity and meaning are imperative; that if they attempt to pass another Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, or elsewhere, in other states, using the same language as in Proposition 26, it is very likely to be defeated as well.
And what has Michelle Goldberg learned? She finishes her column by writing:
They (Mississippi voters) may pay lip service to the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being whose rights trump those of women, but they’re not willing to carry it to its clear, cruel conclusions.
In other words, Michelle has learned nothing. “Its clear, cruel conclusions” is the violent act of abortion itself, not, as she and other pro-abortion supports contest, the defeated proposition. And “a fertilized egg” is a human being, as science has already confirmed. Indeed, life, the sanctity of life, ought to “trump” a woman’s desire to indiscriminately kill it.
But Michelle Goldberg, for all her “feminism” would rather all women remain ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the reality of abortion.
What is it she is afraid women will learn?