Our Daughters Dreams Arise from this Glad Slaughter!


Rubens; Saturn Devouring his Child

The president, whose administration last Friday declared that religiously-founded institutions — schools, hospitals and charities — have no right to their own consciences when it comes to paying for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization — dropped these pearls for us on the occasion of the anniversary of Roe v Wade, a law passed some 40 million abortions ago:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Shall we look at that more closely?

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

This comes out of the chutzpah-laden mouth of a man whose administration just last Friday — on the third anniversary of his empty, meaningless inaugural address — defined down the whole notion of protecting freedom by declaring that religious schools, hospitals, charities and more — any religious body that employs people outside of a very narrow scope — are no longer free to live by their own consciences, but must instead violate those consciences by order of his own government.

Color me a cynic, but I wasn’t as as shocked as some to see this Administration double down against the churches. And I’m not sure I want to take my definition of “protection” or “freedom” from a man who seems to pick-and-choose what the words mean — and from a very illiberal perspective, for that matter.

I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

The president is a man who is committed to protecting “rights” that are not specifically enumerated within the constitution, while equally committed to disregarding or limiting rights that are fundamentally and specifically stated; rights upon which the nation was founded and which, indeed, are so crucial to America’s understanding of who she is and why she is necessary that they are the very first rights mentioned.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.

Take note of his priorities. They do not speak of an understanding that life is a gift to celebrate; it is — first and foremost — a thing to be prevented. But yeah, if an unintended pregnancy happens, and the woman insists on having the thing, we should “support” the women in some vague way and oh, yeah, there’s adoption! Increasingly, the churches (who, in many cases offered adoption and child-placement services before the states were even thinking about it) are being disinvited from involving themselves in that worthy act, unless they will — here we go again — deny their own consciences and cease to be who they proclaim themselves to be, in order to conform to the government’s ideas of who and what they should be.

And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Let’s spell this out; let’s clarify this vague, euphemistic line, for the sake of transparency, shall we? Because this dual-mouthed president is all about transparency — he even won an award for it, which he received without press — the fulfillment of our daughter’s dreams lie in the freedom and ease with which a sucking hose or a scraping curette may introduce violence and slaughter within their wombs, at the very core of their beings, in order to shred their children to pieces. For this 100% NARAL-approved president who passed up every opportunity to show even a scintilla of mercy for a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, our daughter’s dreams depend on their being able to find someone who will burn their baby in utero, or shove a pair of scissors into the partially-delivered child’s skull, or to close the lid on the garbage pail until the bothersome crying ends.

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny; some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance given by any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

“I don’t want them punished with a baby”

Moloch couldn’t have said it more cunningly.

Today I feel great sadness and compassion for all of the women who have bought into this at some point in their lives and aborted their children, and who have suffered — often for decades, often in deep loneliness — for their babies. The lie that abortion provides, at it’s core, some ultimate “good” is a lie that has stood too long.

Here is what you need to know about this unconscionable HHS ruling

Some Perspective: Thanks to Ed Morrissey (and ABC!)

Related:
Danielle Bean: why we march!
EWTNWatch Life
Peter Kreeft: The Apple Argument against abortion
Holy Courage: what it takes
Kathy Schiffer: Benedict XVI’s prayer for the unborn
Robert Royal: Divine Impatience
The silliest pro-abortion argument: is the one you hear all the time
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Suing Sebelius
Tina Korbe: March for Life expected to draw 100,000
Picking a fight with Catholics?: No, with all the churches, and people better realize it!
First Things: The “R” word
Frank Weathers: The Life at Conception Act
Powerlineblog: Obama’s words about government intrusion on family matters are laughable and phony
Deacon Greg: “It’s life; you do what you have to do”
Running Roughshod: Over the Constitution
Mark Shea: not a man of few words and what the press is covering instead of the march
First Things: On and For Life, The “best of”
Michelle Malkin: a great roundup
USCCB: vowing to fight
Steven Greydanus: liveblogging the march
Msgr. Charles Pope: Experiencing life
Public Discourse: The Unbearable Wrongness of Roe

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://www.rosesintherubble.com Virginia

    Ms. Scalia – thank you for this insightful post. I’m not sure voting for a Republican or Democrat president is the answer to this challenge – maybe we need to pray a bit more (on our knees) for hearts to be transformed, beginning with ours. If more Catholics & Christians would stop judging so much (re: culture of shame for unmarried pregnant women), maybe more girls would Choose Life… Also consider putting in more on-the-knees prayer time for our President (he has a tough job on many fronts!) – that his heart will be transformed with love for the unborn & that God will provide huge doses of Wisdom on a daily basis. LIFE IS A GIFT!

  • Scott

    The Federal Government has plan called Healthy People which includes a list of objectives. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ then search “Family Planning”. The family planning section has “(Developmental) Increase the proportion of health insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services” and “Increase the proportion of females in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies who receive those services and supplies” as objectives. The page that explains the overall theory behind these family planning objectives has references from the Alan Guttmacher Institute and from K Kost and J Darroch who are senior Guttmacher employees but none from the Catholic Church. These objectives are driving public health policy (and promotions for public health bureaucrats) and I think that revising them should be a goal for the Bishops. The Bishops did not contribute during the public comments time. That was a mistake.

  • kevin

    Greta, good luck in your battle. Your writing and observations have inspired many people including me.

  • http://www.hokaipaulos.com/ Joe Wetterling

    Well said, Elizabeth. Thank you!

    This part of the speech jumped out at me: “…we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

    In the name of equality, then, I should have the same rights to fulfill my dreams that women have.

    If a father wants the baby and the mother doesn’t, there is nothing he can do. The reverse, then, should also be available: if he doesn’t want the baby, he should be able to walk away with no repercussions. We could limit it to the first trimester or the first two, if necessary; anytime before that, he can terminate his fatherhood. A man shouldn’t be punished with a baby just because he made a mistake. Keep your laws off my wallet.

  • Elizabeth

    How to determine if someone supports abortion-as-birth-control: One obvious indicator is if the individual is sexually-active but not planning on having children anytime soon, and is perfectly comfortable saying, “if I get pregnant, I would get an abortion” or “I would take it for granted that my girlfriend would get an abortion.” That’s abortion as back-up birth control. And Obama is telling us that women and girls need the abortion as back-up birth control option to be fulfilled in their lives — that is, they need the guarantee that they can have sex without risk of pregnancy. How awful — especially when speaks specifically of his own daughters.

  • Pingback: men without a homeland …

  • http://victor-undergo.blogspot.com/ Victor

    Greta, you’ve got to stop this wonderful writing of yours because you’ve honestly got some of my reality cells forming little drops of tears and feeling sorry for U>S (usual sinners) so if you do make “IT” to GOD’s Kingdom please ask Good Old Dad to say a special prayer for me, myself and i also. Until then “I” will keep praying for all of US.

    Me too Victor! :)

    Peace

  • http://askmeaboutgod.org Doug Lawrence

    A fantastic, truly insightful post! I hope everyone gets to read it. God bless you.

  • Brian

    In response to the following statement by admin:

    [b]So, if a Christian waitress is employed by a Kosher restaurant, she has the right to demand that they cook her a non-kosher meal? The fact that she knew she was being employed by Kosher Jews and chose to accept that employment does not come into it? If a Muslim accepts employment in a porn shop, he has the right to demand that it put brown paper over its covers? [/b]

    There is no comparison between the above example and the law requiring insurance to cover contraception. Catholic institutions are not required to manufacture contraception on their premises or provide contraception for their employees to take on their premises. A more accurate comparison would be a Kosher restaurant telling their employees that they cannot use their pay to purchase non-kosher food for themselves at a place other than the restaurant, to eat in the privacy of their own homes. I doubt very much a Kosher restaurant could make such requirements of their employees. The health insurance that employees receive from their employers is compensation for their work, and it belongs to them, not their employers. They have a right to use it as they see fit, and if they have a need contraception, they have the right to use their insurance for it.

    Just as employers don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on employees, employees don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on employers. If a Muslim works in a porn shop, he cannot force his employer to follow his religious laws.

    Not everyone has a choice as to where they work. For some employees at Catholic institutions, they might not have other employment options.

  • Brian English

    “A more accurate comparison would be a Kosher restaurant telling their employees that they cannot use their pay to purchase non-kosher food for themselves at a place other than the restaurant, to eat in the privacy of their own homes.”

    No it’s not. People who work at Catholic institutions are free to buy all the contraceptives they want. The just can’t expect their employers to pay for them.

    “The health insurance that employees receive from their employers is compensation for their work, and it belongs to them, not their employers. They have a right to use it as they see fit, and if they have a need contraception, they have the right to use their insurance for it.”

    It is a benefit offered by the employer. The government is trying to force religious institutions to violate their morals by dictating the form that benefit has to take. The government has no right to do that.

    “Not everyone has a choice as to where they work. For some employees at Catholic institutions, they might not have other employment options.”

    That is tough. I am sure there are plenty of people who are not obsessed with their insurance covering contraceptives who would be happy to take the job.

    [Thank you, Brian English. Saved me the trouble! -admin]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X