49 Years: Better Late Than Never

by Roger Resler

It took 49 years but it finally happened! To be honest, I had given up hope of ever seeing it in my lifetime. SCOTUS admitted its error and reversed itself. In what is now the landmark 6-3 decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court held that:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey
are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the
people and their elected representatives


Needless to say there is much that could be said about this opinion and, no doubt, will be. I’ve waited until I could actually read the (actual) final opinion to make any comments. I can now say it was worth the wait. In short, it’s an excellent, well written, well reasoned opinion. Well worth the read. And I welcome thoughtful discussion/dissent about it here.

Predictably, the pro-abortion left is losing its mind. Admittedly, it’s still early, so I could potentially be surprised, but so far all I’ve seen in response are emotional arguments based on fiction. Here are (merely) two examples:

Patently obvious hyperbole. And yet many on the left (and even in the middle) repeat it unquestioningly as though it were as valid as apple pie. First, on the “ensuring they make it to recess alive” notion, does any rational person actually believe the government has it within their power – using only “gun control” legislation – to stop an insane person from obtaining a gun and walking into a school with the intent of massacre? Until every school is reduced to single entry with an armed, well-trained guard posted at the entrance, we’re not really serious about protecting our kids. Regardless, Dobbs has nothing to do with gun control or the 2nd Amendment.

The first claim, on the other hand – that the government is: “bold enough to force you to have a kid” is relevant to Dobbs, but, as usual, is a gross distortion of reality. Here’s reality: No one is forcing you to have a kid. So obvious it’s surprising it needs to be said. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood used to argue that making birth control legal (yes, it actually used to be illegal) would make abortion a “useless crime.” I hate agreeing with Margaret Sanger but in this case her logic is pretty decent. In a society with multiple forms of readily available birth control methods, abortion should be a “useless crime.” The truth is, no one is forcing you to have a kid, and unless you’ve been raped, no one forced you to have sex.

The second hyperbolic response to Dobbs I’ve seen is even further off the wall:

Yes, people actually created this video as though it represents something even remotely close to reality. Even prior to Roe, abortionists who performed illegal abortions were sometimes prosecuted but the women who had hired them were almost never arrested for illegal abortion. Again, hyperbole. And yet it raises what should be the fundamental question: at what point is the human life inside the womb of a pregnant woman worthy of legal protection? Never?

A striking irony in all of this is that many pro-choice people are also animal rights proponents – and I’m right there with them on that. Cruelty to animals is despicable human behavior and is rightfully illegal. Where is the same compassion many on the left have for animals when it comes to living – and quite defenseless – humans in the womb? Serious question.

Don’t believe it’s human? Don’t believe it’s alive? Prove it with biological facts. But you’ll find that the facts are against you. Don’t believe a human fetus is even the moral equivalent of a dog or cat? Prove it with rational logic. Want abortion to be 100% legal in every state? Demonstrate – using biological facts – that a human fetus is the moral equivalent of a tonsil. If you can do that, I and millions of pro-life proponents will become pro-choice and the abortion controversy ends. So far, all I’ve seen is hyperbole.

In the meantime, if you’re pro-choice, here’s a legitimate question for you: when did you begin to exist?

Reversing Roe

by Roger Resler

I’m a little late to the game but I just discovered a 2018 documentary on Netflix called: “Reversing Roe.” Intrigued by the title, I dove in. It was well produced, although obviously slanted in favor of the pro-choice position. While it clearly couldn’t be described as “fair and balanced,” at least for the most part it wasn’t overt, over-the-top pro-choice propaganda. The majority of the views presented were from those in favor of Roe v. Wade, but a few pro-life proponents were also given time to make their case – or at least to make various pro-life counter points while the film was making its case. And, as the producers themselves point out on a separate Q & A session, the term “pro-life” is used often rather than “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” out of respect for the fact that that is the term pro-lifers use to describe themselves. Kudos for that.

That said, however, there are still some major flaws.

First, – and this is one of my pet peeves – the pro-life position is taken for granted as being fundamentally religious in nature while the pro-choice position is assumed to be factually and scientifically based. This is a serious skew. While it is obviously true that many pro-life proponents are deeply religious people, it is also true that there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice – ironically, as casually revealed in the film itself. Case in point: the film features several comments from Rev. Tom Davis of the United Church of Christ, who was a member of the Clergy Consultation Service in the years prior to Roe v. Wade and identifies himself in the film as an “abortion counselor.”

It is also true that various religious groups are opposed to abortion to one degree or another while others are in favor of it to one degree or another. But the pro-life point of view itself is not based on religion; it is based on morality. The same is true for the pro-choice position. In both cases, the relevant question is whether or not abortion is morally acceptable, not whether it is religiously acceptable. Even prominent members of various pro-life groups recognize their opposition to legalized abortion doesn’t ultimately rest on the positions taken by their various churches, but on the broader notion that legalized abortion (in most cases) is simply morally wrong. Yet, just as many individual pro-choice proponents are in the habit of doing, Reversing Roe characterizes the pro-life position as being integrally tied to religion. If you were only going off information presented in the film, you might easily come to the conclusion that it is impossible to be pro-life without also being religious. Try arguing that with pro-life atheist Kelsey Hazzard or the members of Feminists For Life.

If the abortion debate is framed as religion vs. science or dogma vs. facts (with science and facts residing on the pro-choice side), it doesn’t take a genius to see who’s going to win. OBGYN and Missouri abortionist, Dr. Colleen McNicholas is featured prominently in the film, at one point arguing that there are allegedly “factual inaccuracies” in pro-life legislation. The irony is this: biological facts and science in general support the pro-life position, not the pro-choice position. And what is even more ironic, the pro-choice position is actually founded on ignorance of scientific facts and it must perpetuate that ignorance in order to remain viable.

I realize if you’re pro-choice you may find that offensive. But it’s true and the film itself proves it.

Sarah Weddington is the attorney who argued in favor of the pro-choice position in Roe v Wade. While giving the history of Roe in the film, Weddington makes the following statement:

“At one point a Justice had said to me, ‘When do you believe human life begins?’ And I said, ‘Well, your honor, we did not try to say exactly what moment that was.’ There is no one answer to that. Different religions have different answers to that question. But there is no legal standard that said at this point the fetus becomes a human. So the question is: who gets to make the decision? Is it the woman or is it the government? And my position has always been: it’s not the government.”

So here we have multiple factual inaccuracies resting on one another and ultimately resting on an appeal to ignorance. When does human life begin? “We did not try to say exactly what moment that was.” That, of course, is lawyer mumbo-jumbo for: “We don’t know.” But the truth is we do know. And in fact we knew in 1972 when Sarah Weddington was presenting oral arguments in Roe v. Wade. There are many sources that could be cited to prove this easily researched fact. For example:

“…upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”

When Do Human Beings Begin?
“Scientific” Myths and Scientific Facts
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
(copyright February 1999)

This excellent paper is only one, but I cite several other sources in my book (Compelling Interest: The Real Story Behind Roe v. Wade). So the first “inaccuracy” in Sarah Weddington’s statement is the implication that in 1972 science did not know when human life begins and apparently she wants us to believe it still doesn’t. This, of course, is utter nonsense. But notice Weddington’s phraseology. She does not even mention the words “science” or “biology” or “embryology.” Pretty sure that’s intentional. Not surprisingly, what she does mention is religion. And her point in bringing up religion is to muddy the waters. Religions disagree on when human life begins? So what? If there were consensus among all religions that human life begins at fertilization, would Sarah Weddington then be willing to give up a woman’s right to choose abortion? I seriously doubt it. So her use of alleged disagreement among religions as to when human life begins is purely a red herring and is completely irrelevant.

Another serious problem with Weddington’s “logic” is that the decision to have or not have an abortion is only a valid decision if both options are equally morally acceptable. Weddington takes for granted that the decision is morally acceptable because, as she freely acknowledges, people disagree about when human life begins (despite the lack of disagreement among embryologists). Her position makes no attempt to resolve the question (as doing so would be self destructive). Therefore, even according to Weddington’s way of thinking, it’s still quite possible that each legal decision for abortion her advocacy in Roe has permitted is the killing of an innocent human being. Her appeal to ignorance on the central question leaves her position glaringly vulnerable to this line of criticism.

But then Weddington’s “logic” devolves even further into the absurd when she asserts that: “…there is no legal standard that said at this point the fetus becomes a human.” Sheer and utter nonsense. A human fetus is always a human. Humans can only reproduce other humans. Therefore the notion that there needs to be a “legal standard” declaring that at a certain point in human development a “fetus becomes a human” is patently ridiculous. Yet here is the most prominent advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion resting her case on both ignorance of genuine scientific facts and rhetorically twisting those facts into absurdity.

The fact is the notion of personhood became the gold standard for Roe v. Wade. It was recognized that the scientific question of “when does human life begin” would not provide the desired answer on which to base the legalization of abortion on demand. Accordingly, the science was ignored and the debate shifted into the metaphysical realms of philosophy and religion. The new question became: “When does a living human become a ‘person’?” As I point out in my book, the ambiguous concept of personhood was then easily manipulated to accommodate the pre-existing desire for legalized abortion. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Tomi’s Not Always Right

by Roger Resler

I hate to disagree with a fellow conservative and I find it especially distasteful to do so publicly, but there are times when the points being made are too significant to remain silent.  Tomi Lahren is a prominent, smart, up-and-coming conservative commentator who was let-go from The Blaze – at least from what I can tell – primarily over her pro-choice views. To me – and many other conservatives – the term “pro-choice conservative” is about as oxymoronish as is the term: “reasonable liberal.”

Regardless of any possible incongruity, otherwise staunchly conservative Tomi makes no bones about being proudly pro-choice, and in a recent Fox Nation post, she does so enthusiastically.  I have no reason to doubt Tomi’s sincerity and so I’m hoping that she might actually be open to reasonable dialogue on this issue – if not with me, at least with the many prominent conservatives who disagree with her. One of my great frustrations in attempting to dialogue with most pro-choice proponents is that it quickly becomes apparent that an honest exchange of ideas based on rational facts is simply not possible, because, as most conservatives understand, liberalism is not based on reason, it’s based on emotion.  And make no mistake about it, abortion freedom is an inherently liberal idea; not conservative.

Unfortunately, Tomi seems completely unaware that the pro-choice talking points she parrots follow the liberal stick-with-emotions game plan she otherwise effectively confronts on a daily basis. So let’s take a deeper look…

Alabama’s new abortion ban is too restrictive and will not reduce abortions. It will just make them more unsafe.

I’m sure I’m going to get a lot of heat from fellow conservatives on this stance, but so be it.

Yes, Tomi, you are going to get a lot of heat for expressing these views because you are pretty much parroting liberal, pro-choice ideology. It would be naive to expect silence from conservatives.  But if your views are correct, they should stand the scrutiny regardless of where the criticism is coming from.  The notion that Alabama’s new abortion law is “too restrictive” is certainly a matter of subjective opinion, but the idea that it will not reduce abortions is a truth claim that can either be supported by evidence or falsified. I notice you present little to no evidence.

Later in your article you allege that “Countries with strict abortion laws have higher abortion rates according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute.” The Guttmacher Institute is hardly an objective source of information so I would take their findings with a heavy dose of skepticism. But even if what you allege is actually true one would be hard-pressed to explain the alleged phenomenon. Do laws against murder actually drive up the murder rate? I doubt it. But even if that unlikely scenario turned out to be true should we then conclude that the most rational response would be to do away with laws against murder? Would we expect the murder rate to drop if we suddenly stopped prosecuting people for murder? Doesn’t seem very rational.

You continue:

Abortion should never be celebrated, glorified or encouraged as a form of lazy birth control.

Here we agree, but I would like to delve into why we agree.  Why should abortion never be celebrated? As I’m sure you’re well aware there are radical groups out there who actually do celebrate their abortions. No doubt they are extreme, but at the very least, it would appear they actually believe their own propaganda. They apparently actually believe that an unborn human is truly something on the level of a tumor. If they’re right about that (very crucial point of disagreement) then why shouldn’t they celebrate their abortions?

Of course, I think you and I probably agree – at least at some point in human development – that the unborn human is simply not on the level of a tumor. There is value to unborn human life simply by virtue of the fact that it’s alive and human. Not to mention that we ALL began as unborn humans. That – I suspect – is why you agree with me that “Abortion should never be celebrated, glorified or encouraged as a form of lazy birth control.”

But if we can agree on that much, then – I’m sorry Tomi – the rest of your arguments break down.

If the pro-life movement really wants to support women to ultimately choose life when making the most difficult decision they’ve ever had to make, do you really think a government mandate is the way to do it?

I don’t.

Of course I agree with you that – in most cases – less government is better government. But we simply can’t take that logic to the extreme. No government is chaos. There is a place for some government. Again, I think that’s pretty obvious when it comes to laws against murder. Most people agree that laws against murder are a necessary element to a civilized society. Unfortunately, there are people who do commit murder. And they still do so – and try to get away with it – despite laws against murder with harsh sentences. But the crime of murder is so egregious, we still – as a society – agree that such laws are necessary.

But if we were to apply the same type of pro-choice reasoning you are using to justify the elimination (or at least the liberalization) of abortion laws, then we could only conclude that laws against murder obviously don’t stop people from committing murder so what good are they? Well for one thing, they most certainly act as a deterrent. Do we know for sure whether the existence of anti-murder laws save the lives of humans who would otherwise be murdered? While we may not empirically know the answer, common sense alone suggests the deterrent factor is real. Beyond that, however, even if anti-murder laws didn’t stop a single murder, it would be a serious mistake to do away with them for the simple reason that a law says we – as a society – agree that this act is immoral and shouldn’t be allowed. We are drawing a moral line in the sand. That some people choose to cross the line does not make the act morally acceptable.

That brings me to this new Alabama complete abortion ban. It provides an exception only for the life of the mother. It provides no exceptions for rape or incest. That’s radical.

It’s only radical if you disagree that an unborn human life has value. This is the question that everything hinges on. How much is one human life worth? Should ANYONE be allowed to kill another (innocent) living human? And if so, under what conditions? I am pro-capital punishment, which is why I add the qualifier “innocent.” I believe the death-penalty is appropriate in some circumstances. I also believe that soldiers defending this country have a moral right to kill other living humans in combat.  But those exceptions are radically different from the general idea that it is simply immoral to intentionally kill innocent human life. So the Alabama law is only radical if unborn human life is somehow worth less than human life outside the womb. Are you prepared to make that case?

In support of your claim you fall back on the typical liberal appeal to emotions through anecdote:

One of my good friends is a Texas police detective in the division on crimes against children. She’s handled cases involving girls as young as 9-years-old who are impregnated as a result of rape or incest.

Alabama, are you really going to mandate that a 9-year-old child must have her rapists’ baby? Doesn’t that seem a little extreme to you?

Of course this type of argument is used precisely because it is effective. And it’s effective because of its sheer emotional appeal. It says literally nothing about whether ANY human should be allowed to kill another innocent human, and, if so, under what circumstances. Instead it focuses on the most extreme case imaginable and uses the implied response to impose an emotionally derived standard on the vast majority of other cases that do not involve such extreme conditions.

Does your extreme scenario hold up after birth? Should it be legal for a 9 year-old mother who was raped to hire someone to kill her born child? I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t extend your logic that far. So then what is the key moral difference? At some point you must believe that unborn human life is worth considerably less than born human life. Why?

But for the sake of discussion, let’s indulge your anecdotal appeal to emotion and consider the extremely unlikely potential scenario that a 9 year-old in Alabama is raped, becomes pregnant and is denied an abortion because of the “radical” Alabama abortion law. How, in your opinion, do we “fix” the law? Should we specifically allow an exception for 9 year-olds? Of course not; it would have to be more broad than that, wouldn’t it? So where do we draw the line? 10 year old’s. 11?

And this, of course, is the problem. The only “solution” to “fix” the law is a complete exception for anyone who is raped. So the result then is that we are saying – as a society – it’s wrong to kill unborn human life, unless you were raped. It is at least possible to defend that position morally. In my opinion, it’s at least something that is worthy of honest debate. But in this case, the state of Alabama already had that debate and concluded that in their state, they believe it is wrong to kill unborn human life, period, except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy. I think that’s also a reasonable position to hold. It’s not radical and shouldn’t be characterized as such.

Is that what we want in Alabama or anywhere in the United States? Do we want women to resort to their own unsafe methods or travel to other countries to have it done?

Does that really do anything for the pro-life movement, for women, for people in general?

No, it doesn’t.

Again, Tomi, it should be easy to see that this logic totally breaks down if we can simply agree that unborn human life is as valuable as born human life. And if we can’t agree on that, then that’s where we need to have the debate.

You can be pro-life and believe government bans are not the solution.

What happened to safe, legal, and rare?

“Safe, legal and rare” was a mantra created and propagated by liberals until they began to see the inherent contradiction. From the pro-life point of view, no abortion is safe for the unborn human. And if the unborn aren’t alive, or aren’t human, then why should abortions be rare?

That you suggest government bans on abortion are not the solution implies that at some basic level you do not accept that an unborn human is as valuable as a born human – because I’m pretty sure you’re fine with government bans on murder.

The great thing about the conservative movement is that we welcome differences of opinion, or at least we should.

I agree, there should be room for legitimate differences of opinion within the conservative movement but when it comes to the debate over policy that either allows or restricts the destruction of human life, it would seem reasonable that – at the very least – we could agree to err in favor of life.




What The Kavanaugh Controversy is Really All About

by Roger Resler

Amid the hoopla surrounding the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court, I was referred to an article by Benjamin Wittes as a reasonable and measured piece with solid arguments on why Kavanaugh should not be appointed to the Supreme Court. When compared with the repeatedly manifest left-wing hysteria that has been the norm over the last three months in response to the nomination, Wittes’ arguments certainly come across as more reasoned and measured. Nevertheless, the solidity of his “solid” arguments breaks down under scrutiny.

Wittes begins by providing two main arguments as to why, if he were a senator, he would vote against the nominee, despite his “long relationship with Kavanaugh” and his admiration for Kavanaugh’s career on the D.C. Circuit. Wittes even reveals that he’s previously defended Kavanaugh’s character–and taken heat for it.

So what caused the 180 degree turnaround? In short, Kavanaugh’s performance at the October 4th Senate Judiciary Hearing coupled with Wittes’ belief in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh’s primary accuser. At the same time Wittes acknowledges that “it is a real possibility that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that he has had his life turned upside down over a falsehood.”

That real possibility, long friendship and admiration weren’t enough to assuage Wittes’ shock, however, at the Judge’s non-judicial reaction to charges of attempted rape, gang-rape, drugging victims, punch spiking and even some vicious ice-throwing. Wittes may have either forgotten or ignored the fact that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations weren’t the only ones directed at Kavanaugh over the past three weeks. Her’s were merely the least over-the-top. To fairly evaluate Kavanaugh’s response to the pressure he’s been under over the past three months, one must consider the entire picture, which goes far beyond the Ford allegations.

Take the gang-rape allegation, for example, which is simply ludicrous on its face. Who repeatedly attends (at least 9) parties where girls are systematically being drugged and gang-raped and each time fails to tell someone or report it to authorities? This bizarre claim was raised by Julie Swetnick who, as Michael Barone reports for the Washington Examiner:

“has a history of dubious legal claims, and her incredible story totally lacked corroboration, but Democrats nevertheless launched it into public debate with their blessing, and made sure it was in the official record.”

Not only was Swetnick’s claim uncorroborated, under the intense pressure of a sympathetic NBC interviewer she walked her story back to the point of absurdity.

Then there was the Deborah Ramirez claim that Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her while they were students at Yale, published in the New Yorker but skipped by the New York Times (no friend of Kavanaugh or Trump) due to its lack of corroboration.  As William Cummings reported in USA Today:

“The New Yorker said it reached out to many of Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s classmates to see if anyone could corroborate her allegation.

The magazine said that two of the men Ramirez identified as being in the dorm room where the alleged incident took place, the wife of a third man she said was there, and six more classmates all signed a statement disputing Ramirez’s story.

‘We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it – and we did not,’ the statement read. ‘The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending.'”

These are merely the main allegations to come forward in the days following the Christine Blasey Ford allegations. One wonders how Wittes would react had similar uncorroborated allegations been leveled against him over a three week period and then broadcast from every media outlet in the country. But of course, we already know the left’s response to that one: Wittes is not applying for a seat on the Supreme Court. This, of course, is a cop-out leading to the ridiculous conclusion: Humans need not apply to the Supreme Court. Or the equally ridiculous notion that one is entitled to react passionately and emotionally in the face of a wave of serious allegations–many of which are clearly over-the-top–unless one is applying for a seat on the Supreme Court. Last I knew, judges are not required to check their humanity at the courthouse door. It should also be duly noted that a Senate Judiciary hearing is, in fact, not a courtroom.

Continuing, Wittes informs his readers that he had already publicly offered Kavanaugh some free advice in a previous column on how to handle the situation. Kavanaugh should withdraw from consideration unless he were able to:

“defend himself to a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford. He should remain a nominee, I argued, only if his defense would be sufficiently convincing that it would meet what we might term the “no asterisks” standard—that is, that it would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice.”

This, of course, is a lofty goal, but I suspect Wittes may have been living in fantasy land for the last few decades. In the real world of 21st century American politics, his “no asterisks” standard just doesn’t fly, as is evident, for example, in the fact that from the beginning a bevvy of Democratic senators immediately rushed to condemn Kavanaugh and proclaim their strong opposition to his nomination. As is clearly seen in the video I just linked to, not one of them even hinted that they would approach the situation like adults, with an open mind and seriously consider Kavanaugh’s qualifications. There was not even a pretense of fairness. Keep in mind that the comments by the Democratic Senators in the video I just linked to were made on July 10th–well in advance of any public sexual misconduct allegations. Democrats had already decided to vigorously oppose Kavanaugh from the beginning and as the video reveals, their actual reasons for opposing Kavanaugh–surprise!–had everything to do with their vociferous disagreement “with his jurisprudential views.” So much for open minds and fairness. So much for civility. The Democrat’s minds were closed from the beginning. No “astericks” standard is possible in such a hostile environment, and to think so is simply naive.

But Wittes offers up this unrealistic standard nonetheless and even ratchets it up a notch. Not only must Kavanaugh’s defense not be perceived as an attack on his accuser (despite her obvious attack on him) while convincing the unconvinceable, it must also be presented in such a way as to:

“make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.”

So here we get to the real crux of the matter. Despite all the bluster, this all boils down to preserving Roe v. Wade at any cost. The Democrats freely admit this on the NBC News video I linked to. They are fully aware that Kavanaugh’s vote has a real potential to degrade or even overturn Roe, and such a thought is pure anathema to them. They will, accordingly, oppose this nomination at any cost. This is the real reason they so adamantly opposed Kavanaugh from the beginning.

With this latest stipulation Wittes’ “no asterisks” standard moves from unreasonable to patently absurd. First of all, even throwing out all allegations of sexual misconduct, I don’t know of any truly pro-choice women (reasonable or not) who would find it “legitimate or acceptable if not “attractive or appealing” that Kavanaugh might sit on a case reconsidering Roe under any conditions unless he were to publicly state that he would always rule in favor of pro-choice ideology–and even then they would likely be suspicious. Unless Kavanaugh surrenders from the outset any ability to give the pro-life position equal consideration in such a case (which then obviously holds open the possibility that it might win should it prove more convincing), there is virtually no possibility of persuading a “reasonable pro-choice woman” (or even a mere handful of Democratic senators) that appointing Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is a good idea. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D – Connecticut), for example, explicitly says as much in the aforementioned video (starting at 1:28).

Conversely, how many recent Democrat Supreme Court nominees could meet this standard were it equally applied? How many reasonable pro-life women (or men for that matter) would find it “a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one,” that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade? The answer, of course, is none. Yet these nominees all received significant Republican support and none were accused of gross sexual misconduct at the end of their hearings in a last-ditch attempt to derail their nominations. Newsflash: abortion is a controversial issue. That Kavanaugh presumably holds reasoned opinions on the matter is not morally any different than the reasoned opinions held by the liberals on the high court. Or is it simply that holding pro-life views is in itself disqualifying?

Despite Wittes’ alleged long admiration for Kavanaugh and unlike Kavanaugh’s several hundred other friends and supporters who’ve emphatically vouched for his character, when the chips are down, he seems perfectly willing to abandon a friendship over an unrealistic, self-imposed standard. You might think that’s end of the story. But it gets worse.

Wittes goes on to chastise his one-time friend for his “unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion.” Ironically, while not begrudging Kavanaugh the acceptability of expressing emotion or even anger, given that he’s been through a “kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air,” Wittes, nonetheless:

“cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.”

Got it. Raw, naked and conspiratorial partisanship is acceptable when coming from Democrat senators announcing their unequivocal, coordinated opposition to a highly qualified candidate before any hearing has begun, but accurately describing those Democrat’s blatantly partisan actions in a passionate way before a Senate Judiciary Committee is enough to exclude one from consideration as a Supreme Court nominee. At least that’s the way it works in Wittes’ world.

Interestingly, despite his “friendship” and “admiration” for Kavanaugh, Wittes goes on to suggest that Ford’s testimony was more credible than Kavanaugh’s:

“On one side of the ledger, Ford is wholly credible. Yes, her story has holes. The location of the event is unclear in her memory, as is—importantly—how she got home and what happened after she left the house in question. Yet few observers seem to dispute her credibility. Not even Kavanaugh and his supporters contend that she is lying or making up the incident in question, merely that she is mistaken as to his involvement in it.”

Well mark me as one of many observers (apparently missed by Wittes) who dispute the credibility of Ford’s testimony. Wittes casually glosses over the key point that her story has holes. Indeed it does. Large, gaping holes. For starters, who legitimately forgets the location of an attempted rape where you were in fear for your life? You might not remember the exact street address, but you would almost certainly be able to narrow the location to potential addresses that could then be investigated. Unless, of course, you didn’t really want the event to be investigated at a real-world level. Ford remembers stairs, but not the house. How she got to and from the location is also problematic. Ford doesn’t remember, but she couldn’t have legally driven herself since she was–allegedly–only fifteen. Or was she really fifteen? Her therapist’s notes seem to imply otherwise. (More on this in a moment). Who drove her? The driver could be a potential witness. Or was she actually the driver, which would mean the attack did not occur when she alleges it did. (More on this in a moment). Because of these “holes” in her testimony there is no way to investigate the matter. We can’t interview her driver, there is no date or location, and in fact, as Margot Cleveland points out in USA Today, even the general location appears questionable based on inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony:

“Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it’s somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.”  Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.”

Cleveland further points out that Ford’s testimony changed over time in response to evidence that would prove her allegations false:

“Investigators also spoke with former classmates of Kavanaugh, including two men who showed staffers the “party houses” near the country club during the relevant time period. And the detailed description of the home interior Ford originally provided allowed investigators to compare her story to the layout of the homes of the individuals Ford identified. But then Ford changed her description of the house’s floor plan.

Since media leaks of Ford’s charges first broke, Kavanaugh and his supporters have stressed the impossibility of proving the negative: Kavanaugh could not prove he did not attack Ford. But Kavanaugh could prove that Ford’s story could not possibly have happened by showing that none of the individuals at the supposed party lived in a house near the country club, and that none of their houses matched that described by Ford.  Kavanaugh and investigators were poised to do so when Ford changed her story.”

Moreover, Wittes acknowledges that “Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of her story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event.” This is actually deceptively soft. It’s not merely that Ford can offer “no contemporaneous corroboration of her story;” rather, it’s that virtually all of the witnesses she actually did name deny any knowledge of the event while some of them actually dispute the allegations and suggest that such behavior is completely out of character for Kavanaugh. And, in what presumably should be her star corroborative witness, Allen Zhong reports that a close friend of Ford’s named Leland Keyser has testified under oath that she doesn’t know Brett Kavanaugh and “has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present.”

Inexplicably, Wittes fails to consider these highly relevant facts. In addition to the holes  and lack of corroboration, even more doubt looms over Ford’s credibility when considering her extensive history of international air travel despite her stated fear of flying, and as Marc Thiessen reports, the inconsistency about the reason she allegedly wanted a second front door:

“Ford testified under oath that the reason she finally told a therapist in 2012 about the alleged assault three decades after she says it happened was because, during a renovation of her Palo Alto, Calif., home, she “insisted on a second front door,” and her husband disagreed. So, during marriage counseling, she testified, “in explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail.” She confirmed to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that the reason for the second door was “claustrophobia.” She also never said when the renovation took place, leaving the impression that it coincided with the counseling.

But RealClear Investigations uncovered real estate records and other documents that contradict Ford’s sworn testimony. Those records “reveal the door was installed years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage-counseling business.” RealClear quotes an attorney familiar with the investigation who said, “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room.” Additionally, building permits for Ford’s second home, in Santa Cruz, Calif. — which she applied for in July, the month that she wrote to Feinstein about the alleged attack — include a front porch and decks but not a second front door. Taken together with questions about her claims about her ability to fly to Washington to testify, about her familiarity with polygraph tests and about the therapist notes’ whereabouts, this revelation further calls into question Ford’s credibility.”

Adding to the troubling inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony is the fact that her ex-boyfriend suggests that Blasey Ford was lying about her polygraph test.

In a fascinating Twitter thread, Margot Cleveland further examines Christine Blasey Ford’s diminishing credibility in regard to the discrepancies between her testimony and her therapist’s notes:

“Look how Ford’s Safeway testimony has been reported: Judge’s book validates Ford’s timeline! BUT Ford’s attorneys refused to turn over therapist’s records which record what Ford told therapist and that was attack in mid-80s when in her late teens & 4 boys!”

A reported attack in the “mid 80s when in her late teens” by four boys does not match an alleged attack in 1982 by two boys. The timing is critical as Margo Cleveland points out in National Review:

“Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.”

Ford’s response is to suggest that the therapist got it wrong. But the discrepancy raises a key question: Did the alleged incident happen in 1982 before Ford had her driver’s license or in the mid 80’s (as reported by her therapist) after she got her driver’s license? If in 1982 someone would have had to have driven her and picked her up. If after, then Ford would have driven herself which would then explain why she “can’t remember” how she got to or from the event or, for that matter, why no one has come forward to say they were the driver.

Why Wittes, President Trump or any fair-minded observer would characterize Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony as “credible” is beyond me. Sympathetic perhaps, credible not so much.

Now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed as a Justice, the fight isn’t over. Liberals are vowing to impeach him should Democrats regain control of the House and Senate. Again, the real battle here is the battle to preserve or destroy Roe v. Wade. I’ve written an entire book on why it shouldn’t be preserved so I won’t belabor that point here. Suffice it to say Roe needs to go and Democrats are keenly aware that Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court means it may actually be in jeopardy. That’s the real reason bizarre sexual assault allegations began coming out of the woodwork after it became clear that the petulant screaming of half-crazed liberal activists during Senate confirmation hearings wasn’t going to accomplish the goal. I hope Republican’s, Libertarian’s, Independent’s and Classical Liberal’s memories hold out until November 6th.

Slavery and Abortion: A Legitimate Comparison

by Roger Resler

When the pro-abortion left finds something particularly annoying I take notice. It usually means they’ve encountered a solid argument they don’t want to (or can’t) confront with sound logic and reason and must therefore resort to emotional attacks, logical fallacies and name-calling. Case in point: the analogy between abortion and slavery. Most pro-abortion/pro-choice proponents find the comparison particularly bothersome. Take this article by Imani Gandy for example. The title alone: Abortion Is Not Like Slavery, So Stop Comparing the Two, conjures Shakespeare’s famous adage: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  

Holding nothing back right out of the gate, Gandy describes the comparison between slavery and abortion as “nonsense, devoid of fact and logic, stripping women of agency and co-opting this country’s brutal racial history to score a political point against ideological foes.” To support this thesis, Gandy begins with a bold half-truth: “Abortion is not slavery, nor is it comparable to slavery.” While obviously correct that abortion is not slavery, the idea that the two are not legitimately comparable is wishful thinking. It is precisely the legitimacy of the comparison that annoys pro-choice proponents.

Gandy writes: “An abortion is a medical procedure that results in the termination of a pregnancy,” while, “slavery, on the other hand, was the centuries-long system under which Black men and women were treated not as human beings, with attendant freedom and liberty, but as chattel—human property owned by other humans, stripped of their freedom and cruelly forced to work under inhumane conditions.”

No doubt the irony of Gandy’s prose escapes her. Nevertheless, it’s striking that she correctly identifies a key injustice of slavery – that human beings were treated as non-humans – while simultaneously employing exactly the same treatment to the primary victims of abortion and then stepping it up a notch by ignoring their very existence. By Gandy’s definition abortion merely terminates a pregnancy, whereas slavery oppresses human beings. The irony becomes even clearer when you consider that slave owners used the same type of “reasoning” to justify their actions: slaves were not humans, they were property. There were therefore no human victims of slavery and consequently no injustice. Similarly, the unborn are not humans, they are instead “a pregnancy” – a mere condition occurring within the body of a pregnant woman – and therefore there is no human victim of abortion and consequently no injustice.

The purpose of an argument from analogy is to consider similarities between a non-controversial situation and a controversial one with the hope that insight can be gleaned as to how best to proceed or react to the controversy. Gandy seems to understand this when she writes:

“Comparisons between abortion and slavery are popular among the anti-choice crowd because most people agree that slavery is morally wrong. If anti-choice forces can equate slavery and abortion, and draw parallels between an “unborn” person and an enslaved person, then surely no morally righteous person could continue to defend abortion as a medical procedure that enables women to retain some modicum of control over the [sic] physical selves and their economic realities.”

So Gandy herself acknowledges that if parallels can be drawn between “an ‘unborn’ person and an enslaved person,” then it logically follows that “no morally righteous person could continue to defend abortion.” Hence the frustration. This begs the question: Can unborn humans legitimately be compared to enslaved humans? Obviously Gandy doesn’t think so. But what reasonable grounds does she offer to reject the comparison? She continues:

“Such arguments are the bread and butter of the rabid anti-choice crowd—who ignore any discussion of the hostile birthing environment that exists for women of color and low-income women to this day. Moreover, such arguments ignore the horror that slavery was for Black people, and the unique ways in which Black women in particular suffered under slavery.”

So far Gandy’s logic suggests that one reason unborn humans can’t be compared to enslaved humans is because the “rabid anti-choice crowd” ignores discussions about the “hostile birthing environment that exists for women of color and low-income women to this day.” Needless to say, even if Gandy had offered concrete support to this fantastically broad claim (which she doesn’t), it would still be a completely irrelevant point. If it could be demonstrated, for example, that “the rabid anti-choice crowd” were actually paying attention to discussions about hostile birthing environments would Gandy then concede that comparisons between the unborn and slaves are now acceptable? I doubt it. So, in addition to being ridiculous on its face, the point is useless.

Gandy then moves on to offer support for the second part of her thesis which suggests that the slavery/abortion comparison ignores “the horror that slavery was for Black people, and the unique ways in which Black women in particular suffered under slavery.” To illustrate this point she criticizes Texas Federal Judge Lee Yeakel’s opinion, in Planned Parenthood et al. v. Abbott. According to Gandy, Judge Yeakel wrote: “almost as if he were apologizing to the anti-choice forces that worked so hard to ram HB 2 through the Texas legislature.” Here is the section Gandy quotes and finds particularly offensive (emphasis Gandy’s):

“Today there is no issue that divides the people of this country more than abortion. It is the most divisive issue to face this country since slavery. When compared with the intensity, emotion, and depth of feeling expressed with regard to abortion, the recent arguments on affordable healthcare, increasing the debt ceiling, and closing the government retreat to near oblivion. Sincere and caring persons of good will are found on both sides of the issue, but neither side will ever change the position of the other.”

Gandy’s primary objection to Judge Yeakel’s words is the inference she imposes on them that “sincere and caring persons of goodwill” could be found on opposing sides of the slavery issue. The glaring fallacy is that Judge Yeakel never suggested what Gandy infers from his statement. Nevertheless, Gandy takes Judge Yeakel to task by suggesting that:

“His characterization of slavery, well-meaning though it may be—is based on a romanticized notion of slavery that simply never existed. In Judge Yeakel’s hagiographic version of slavery, well-meaning white folks were to be found on both sides of the issue. This is simply not true.”

I’m sorry, but this is absurd. What is “simply not true” is the notion that Judge Yeakel expressed any view of slavery in the statement Gandy quotes, much less a hagiographic version of it. If Judge Yeakel has a particular view of slavery, he certainly didn’t express it in this quote. To be clear, he never claimed there were sincere and caring persons of good will on both sides of the slavery issue. He merely claims that there are currently sincere and caring persons of good will on both sides of the abortion debate. In Gandy’s apparently black and white world, she may not be able to agree with that. Judge Yeakel’s suggestion that abortion is the most divisive issue to face this country since slavery does not imply that he also believes there were sincere and caring persons of good will on the pro-slavery side of the issue. That is an illegitimate inference that cannot be derived from his statement. To suggest that slavery was divisive is not to suggest that good and caring people could be found on both sides of the issue. But that’s entirely what the rest of Gandy’s thesis rests on, which is why it fails.

To punctuate her error, Gandy asks: “We are talking about the same slavery, right?” and then proceeds as if the strawman she’s fallaciously erected is an accepted and necessary component of any comparison between abortion and slavery. She accurately describes the genuine evils of slavery such as “the slavery that saw human beings beaten into submission” and “the slavery that saw Black female slaves exploited as breeding mares and sexual objects ripe for rape” in an effort to contrast those genuine evils with her own illegitimately imposed inference of Judge Yeakel’s allegedly “romanticized notion of slavery.”

It becomes clear beyond doubt that Gandy either seriously misunderstands or is deliberating twisting Judge Yeakel’s words when she answers her own question:

“That is the slavery supported by ‘sincere and caring persons of good will’?


Utter nonsense. To reiterate, Judge Yeakel never said anything about slavery in the statement Gandy quotes other than the fact that it was divisive. The fact that a civil war was fought over the issue should provide adequate support for that assertion. Of course it’s true that slavery was evil. There’s no disagreement on that which is precisely why the analogy to abortion is perfectly valid.

Here’s the bottom line: If pro-choice proponents are correct that abortion merely “terminates a pregnancy” and there’s really no killing of any human involved in this otherwise safe and legal procedure, then they win. We can all pack up and move on to the next controversy. But suggesting something is true while ignoring clear evidence to the contrary is worse than merely acting out of ignorance. There is one thing that Gandy and I might actually agree on. Despite their condescending rhetoric, slave holders were well aware that black humans were human beings who suffered tremendous injustice because of their desire to own slaves. But because of her desire to be “pro-choice,” Gandy can’t agree with me that pro-choice proponents are well aware that unborn humans are human beings who suffer the ultimate injustice because of pro-choice proponents’ desire to keep abortion legal.

Janet Mefferd Interview

by Roger Resler

January 22nd marked the 43rd Anniversary of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time: Roe v. Wade. Nationally syndicated talk show host Janet Mefferd interviewed Dave Sterrett and me on that day. Listen to the podcast here.

It’s been quite a while since I’ve been interviewed live and it was a challenge to boil long answers down to quick responses. (Meaning: I failed miserably). In fact, I was cut off in mid-thought twice because we were up against breaks. What made matters worse is the fact that I could not hear the music rising in the background – which is the usual cue to wrap it up – so I simply kept talking!

The point I was trying to make the first time was that a key argument by Sarah Weddington in Roe v. Wade was that the anti-abortion laws that had come on the books in the late 1800’s (one of which – the Texas law – was the one Weddington was attacking) had only come on the books out of a concern to protect women from the dangers of abortion in the 1800’s. There was a partial truth to this argument since abortion, in the days prior to antiseptics, certainly was a dangerous undertaking for the pregnant woman. But Weddington was dealing in half-truths. In reality, the primary reason anti-abortion laws, like that of Texas, came on the books was a concerted effort to protect unborn human life. Ironically, even Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe decision, openly (yet somewhat covertly) acknowledges this in the majority opinion!

Although buried in the midst of dry, legal ramblings, anyone who cares to take the time to look can still find this pro-life acknowledgment under the heading: “The Position of the American Medical Association” beginning on page 141 of the Roe majority opinion.

Prior to the mid 19th century, in the United States, English common law had prevailed. In general, abortion was considered a serious misdemeanor prior to “quickening” (the point in pregnancy when the mother first feels the baby move – which is generally around 17 weeks), and a felony after. Weddington ignored the fact that abortion after quickening had, for centuries, been a serious offense (even capital in some cases), and while Blackmun acknowledges it, he nevertheless tended to downplay the significance.

In the mid 1800’s, after fertilization in mammals began to be observed due to the improvements of microscopes, medical doctors became increasingly aware of the deficiencies of abortion laws that were based on the archaic notion of quickening. As Blackmun freely admits, these pro-life doctors began lobbying legislators to update the laws. As a result the quickening based abortion laws were replaced with even stricter laws nationwide. Many of these laws, like that of Texas, allowed for no exceptions other than a life-threatening situation for the mother.

So a key premise in Weddington’s arguments in Roe v. Wade was, at best, erroneous.

The second point I was attempting to make when time again ran out, was that the Texas attorneys who were arguing the pro-life position, were not well prepared and fell into the trap of arguing for “personhood” at conception instead of focusing on the biological beginning of human life. In short, they simply suggested that a fetus is a person because the state of Texas says so. This was obviously not a satisfactory argument for the pro-choice majority of Justices in Roe, who, ironically, ended up arguing the same way – only in reverse – by holding that a fetus is not a “person in the whole sense” because the Supreme Court says so. Unfortunately for millions of unborn humans, the say-so of the Supreme Court trumped the say-so of Texas.

by Roger Resler

Having just posted the transcript for the bulk of the conversation between Chris Cuomo and Marco Rubio during the Rubio interview on CNN last week, let’s now take a closer look and see what insight might be gleaned from this conversation.

Chris Cuomo Interviews Marco Rubio on CNN, August 7, 2015.

Chris Cuomo: Why do you not see rape and incest as areas for potential carve-outs even if you are pro-life?

Just so we’re clear about what’s going on here, as I pointed out earlier, this is side B of the catch-22 set-up pro-choice proponents adore employing. Side A: You believe life begins at conception? How can you support rape and incest exceptions for abortion? Side B: You don’t support rape and incest exceptions? You’re obviously a backwards thinking misogynist barbarian who’s out of touch with modern women. Classic no-win. Enter Rubio.

Marco Rubio: First, I think both of those instances are horrifying and fortunately they’re extremely rare. It happens. And any time it happens it’s horrifying. It’s a tragedy. But I personally and honestly and deeply believe that all human life is worthy of protection irrespective of the circumstances in which that human life was created. I personally believe that you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy. That’s how I personally feel very strongly about. I believe all human life – irrespective of the circumstances in which it came into being is worthy of the protection of our laws. And I recognize this is a tough question. It’s a very difficult question. And I understand that. Believe me, I do.

But by the same token, if I have to weigh the two equities here, I’m always going to err on the side of life. And that’s, that’s how – and I think that’s a timeless principle. Certainly our economy has evolved. But when it comes to issues like the value of every human life I think that’s a timeless principle. It was true before, it’s true now and it will be true in the future.

You do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy. Bingo. To develop Marco’s point a bit further, pro-choice proponents love to sell abortion as though it solves the problem of unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. It doesn’t. That’s the glaring fallacy here very few people take the time to think through. Abortion doesn’t solve the problem. The woman is already pregnant and the rape already occurred. Nothing can change that. Abortion can’t put her in a time machine and transport her back to a time before the rape and then let her live her life from that point forward as though she had never been raped.

No. What abortion does is bring violence to her body a second time and rips up the developing child in the process. Sure, it will end the pregnancy, but it won’t change anything about the fact that she was raped against her will yet made the decision to respond in a way that guarantees a dead child.

I can hear my critics now – oh, what an outrageous thing to say! So what is your solution? Must I believe (naively) as you do that abortion does not kill a child, when all the evidence says you’re wrong? Must I not speak the truth because it’s not nice to call things as they are when a rape has taken place? As Marco points out both rape and incest are horrible things that should never happen. Period. They are tragedies and the perpetrators should be punished to the full extent of the law. But just because one tragedy has occurred doesn’t mean a second tragedy is morally acceptable.

It would only be morally acceptable IF the unborn child really were nothing more than a blob of tissue. This, of course, is what many pro-choice proponents want to believe (because it makes their stand on abortion so much more reasonable), but they’re simply dead wrong. IF they were right about that, then there would be no controversy over abortion. We wouldn’t be having this discussion. It would be a no-brainer. But they’re not right about that. And sometimes the truth is painful. One unplanned tragedy does not justify a planned tragedy. Only if the child in the womb is really just a blob of tissue is abortion not a tragedy; and in that case abortion would be morally acceptable at any time for any reason.

But Cuomo is looking to set a trap for Rubio and he’s confident he’s got the perfect trap:

Chris Cuomo: It’s interesting that you draw distinctions about the old and the new in certain regards but in this one you say, “It’s timeless,” because as you know, cultural mores in this country and certainly the opinions of women are not in step with what you’re saying right now. You’re comfortable with that?

Marco Rubio: But the value of life is timeless. No, no, no, the value of life is timeless. The idea that a human life is worthy of the protection of our laws is not something that over time anybody should evolve on. I mean you can change your economic policies…

Chris Cuomo: right but the idea – you’re, you’re deciding…

Marco Rubio:   …to address the fact that the economy’s different. You can [inaudible] changes… The idea that human life is worthy of protection is a timeless principle. I don’t care how much the world changes.

Don’t you realize you’re out of touch with women, Marco? Doesn’t that bother you? As the guy who wants to look to the future, why do you want to go back to the past? More fallacious drivel.

Marco didn’t comment on it, but the premise of Cuomo’s question was flawed from the start when he suggested that Rubio’s position is “out of step” with the opinions of women, as though every woman in the United States disagrees with Rubio. It would be about the same to accuse a female who is not a fan of the Denver Broncos of being out of step with the opinions of men. Not all men are Bronco fans (sad to say) and certainly not all women are pro-choice. So Cuomo’s question was illegitimate from the start.

No matter. Rubio defeats the question anyway. The value of life is timeless and that value should not change over time. Period. Grand Slam. No disagreement about that from Cuomo.

Chris Cuomo: I know but you’re deciding when it is human life. Let me ask you something, you… Uh…   When you’re looking at the future…

Did you catch that? “I know,” says Cuomo. What does he know? He knows Rubio is right when he says a human life is worthy of protection under the law and that’s a timeless principle that doesn’t or shouldn’t change. Cuomo has no choice but to agree, and he does; but then quickly moves on to: “but you’re deciding when it is human life.”  Ah! So there we go! Finally. There’s the crux of the issue. Cuomo really wants to believe that Marco Rubio (and in essence everyone who is pro-life) is deciding when it’s a human life. And of course, the implication is that we’re deciding incorrectly.

Marco Rubio: No, science has decided when it is human life.

Chris Cuomo: Science has not decided it’s at conception.

Marco Rubio: No, no, let me correct you. Science has, absolutely it has.

Chris Cuomo: Not at conception.

Marco Rubio: Science has decided that… science has concluded. Absolutely it has. What else can it be? It cannot turn into an animal; it can’t turn into a donkey.

Chris Cuomo: No, but you know that the law has perused this. The fact that it…

Marco Rubio: The only thing it can become is a human being.

Chris Cuomo: Look, of course, I understand the logic but it’s a little too simple that…

Marco Rubio: Everything – it’s a human life, it can’t be anything else.

Rubio is, of course, correct. There is no question about it. This is basic biology. The only thing humans can reproduce is other humans. Period. A human zygote is simply a human at his or her earliest stage of development. Period. There’s no question here. There’s no doubt. It can be nothing else.

Now, of course, astute abortion proponents are quick to point out (although Cuomo didn’t) that not all zygotes develop into babies. That is correct, but that merely means something went wrong. What they’re describing is an abnormal situation, not a normal one. If something goes wrong then a zygote may not be able to develop any further, but virtually every human alive or who has ever existed – as in 100% – began as a zygote. Period. End of discussion.

So human life does indeed begin at conception. Look at any reputable embryonic textbook. There is no question. Biologists are not in doubt. Have I emphasized this enough yet? To be honest, it’s ridiculous we’re even having this debate. It’s like debating whether or not you can fall off the edge of the flat earth. The only reason the illegitimate “debate” persists in popular culture is because a substantial number of people want to be pro-choice and a debate over the beginning of human life greatly facilitates that desire. Take (as merely one example) this White Paper report for instance which concludes:

Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in less than a second. Upon formation, the zygote immediately initiates a complex sequence of events that establish the molecular conditions required for continued embryonic development. The behavior of the zygote is radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception.” This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos.

–  “When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective,” Maureen L. Condic, Westchester Institute, Volume 1, Number 1 October 2008

There are no competing theories over the beginning of human life that are being debated by biologists. It’s settled science. As the paper aptly points out the question is not about when a human life begins but rather “at what point and for what reasons do we have an obligation to respect and protect that life.”

In other words, at what point do we get to the point where even Cuomo agrees that “human life is worthy of protection.” But Cuomo wants to have it both ways. He wants to suggest that the actual beginning of human life is legitimately questionable yet he can’t – or won’t – offer any other rationally acceptable possibility, 1. because there are none, and 2. because doing so would require him to rationally defend such a point, and 3. identifying any point defeats the useful ignorance that is central to pro-choice philosophy.

So Rubio is simply correct and Cuomo is simply incorrect. Cuomo, however, proceeds with the interview as though he’s perfectly and uniquely correct. We will, accordingly, continue to analyze this conversation in the coming blog posts. Stay tuned.

More on CNN – Rubio Interview

by Roger Resler

My last blog entry covered the first part of a Chris Cuomo CNN interview with GOP Presidental candidate Marco Rubio last week. The interview goes fairly quickly if you’re watching it on youtube, but in written form it’s a bit lengthy, mainly because Cuomo and Rubio are talking over each other a lot. Still I think the content of this interview is such a classic example of how the pro-choice crowd attempts to railroad pro-life people into a no-win situation, it’s worth making and posting a transcript here, so I can comment on it for my next entry. This transcript is mine. I think it’s pretty accurate but it hasn’t been done by any official company. Here it is:

Chris Cuomo Interviews Marco Rubio on CNN, August 7, 2015.

Chris Cuomo: Why do you not see rape and incest as areas for potential carve-outs even if you are pro-life?

Marco Rubio: First, I think both of those instances are horrifying and fortunately they’re extremely rare. It happens. And any time it happens it’s horrifying. It’s a tragedy. But I personally and honestly and deeply believe that all human life is worthy of protection irrespective of the circumstances in which that human life was created. I personally believe that you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy. That’s how I personally feel very strongly about. I believe all human life – irrespective of the circumstances in which it came into being is worthy of the protection of our laws. And I recognize this is a tough question. It’s a very difficult question. And I understand that. Believe me, I do.

But by the same token, if I have to weigh the two equities here, I’m always going to err on the side of life. And that’s, that’s how – and I think that’s a timeless principle. Certainly our economy has evolved. But when it comes to issues like the value of every human life I think that’s a timeless principle. It was true before, it’s true now and it will be true in the future.

Chris Cuomo: It’s interesting that you draw distinctions about the old and the new in certain regards but in this one you say, “It’s timeless,” because as you know, cultural mores in this country and certainly the opinions of women are not in step with what you’re saying right now. You’re comfortable with that?

Marco Rubio: But the value of life is timeless. No, no, no, the value of life is timeless. The idea that a human life is worthy of the protection of our laws is not something that over time anybody should evolve on. I mean you can change your economic policies…

Chris Cuomo: right but the idea – you’re, you’re deciding…

Marco Rubio:   …to address the fact that the economy’s different. You can [inaudible] changes… The idea that human life is worthy of protection is a timeless principle. I don’t care how much the world changes.

Chris Cuomo: I know but you’re deciding when it is human life. Let me ask you something, you… Uh…   When you’re looking at the future…

Marco Rubio: No, science has decided when it is human life.

Chris Cuomo: Science has not decided it’s at conception.

Marco Rubio: No, no, let me correct you. Science has, absolutely it has.

Chris Cuomo: Not at conception.

Marco Rubio: Science has decided that… science has concluded. Absolutely it has. What else can it be? It cannot turn into an animal; it can’t turn into a donkey.

Chris Cuomo: No, but you know that the law has perused this. The fact that it…

Marco Rubio: The only thing it can become is a human being.

Chris Cuomo: Look, of course, I understand the logic but it’s a little too simple that…

Marco Rubio: Everything – it’s a human life, it can’t be anything else.

Chris Cuomo: Senator, I understand that but it’s oversimplifying it a little bit…

Marco Rubio: It is simple and straightforward.

Chris Cuomo: This is not my argument. This is a presented argument of science – it having a DNA map, so does a plant. Uh, it’s about when it becomes a human being. I’m not saying what I think, in answer to that question, that’s not my position. But don’t you think, if you want to be a leader of the future, that’s a question that deserves an answer that is definitive beyond your faith? When does life begin? None of you…

Marco Rubio: At conception.

Chris Cuomo: …are calling for any type of panel…

Marco Rubio: At conception.

Chris Cuomo: That’s your faith. That’s your faith. That’s not science.

Marco Rubio: No it isn’t. It’s science.

Chris Cuomo: It is not definitive science.

Marco Rubio: Absolutely it is.

Chris Cuomo:   I will have scientists on this show…

Marco Rubio: It absolutely is.

Chris Cuomo: …all morning, from all walks of life who will say: “We cannot say it is definitely human life at conception.”

Marco Rubio: So what are…

Chris Cuomo: It’s more faith than it is science.

Marco Rubio: Oh, so… well if they can’t say it would be human life, what would it become then?

Chris Cuomo: You’re talking about the potential of it…

Marco Rubio: Could it become a cat?

Chris Cuomo: It’s when it becomes an actual human being.

Marco Rubio: Could it become a…

Chris Cuomo: I’m not saying what my position is on it. I am also a Catholic. What I’m telling you is…

Marco Rubio: Well, I can tell you this… no I can tell you this: that every single one of us started at the same stage. That it can’t become anything other than a human being. And that…

Chris Cuomo: But it is about science.

Marco Rubio: And that it’s neither up to you, nor I, nor any politicians to decide that we’re going to allow this life to move forward and this life not to.

Chris Cuomo: But…

Marco Rubio: A human being. It’s heart starts beating within, you know, very early on in that process.

Chris Cuomo: Yeah but not right away.

Marco Rubio: By the time people find out they’re even pregnant it is well developed.

Chris Cuomo: But not right away. And I’m not arguing for…

Marco Rubio: Chris, do you really want to have a government in the [position] of deciding what a human life is and what’s not a human life?

Chris Cuomo: No, I don’t . No I don’t.

Marco Rubio: That’s a human life. It can’t be anything else.

Chris Cuomo: No I don’t.

Marco Rubio: Well that’s a radical position you’re taking.

Chris Cuomo: Senator that’s what I’m saying. You’re over-talking the question. And that’s your right of tactic. But I’ll tell you this: ‘when it begins’ should not be a focus of faith or of suggestion. It should be of science. Just like we did when one life ends. We used to have these same arguments 25, 30 years ago. You had scientists come together and talk about brain activity and the end of life, and it clarified a lot of positions. I’m saying, if you’re going to be a leader of the future, this is something that deserves an answer that goes beyond faith. That’s all I’m saying as a suggestion. Not as an answer…

Marco Rubio: And again, I’m just telling you that…

Chris Cuomo: Not as a suggestion to the answer of the question.

Marco Rubio: First of all I’m happy that my faith… Let me tell you something, I’m happy that my faith influences my political position because my faith teaches me to care for the needy; my faith teaches me to respect and love even my enemies; my faith teaches me to forgive those who slight me. So people should hope that my faith influences my political position. And in this case, yes, I’m proud to say that my faith influences me.

CNN ‘Gotcha’ Interview Backfires

by Roger Resler

Every now and then I run into (or have) a conversation on abortion (I know, not a typical topic of conversation for normal folks) that – how do I put this… uh… makes my blood boil. Current Exhibit A: CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviews Presidential candidate, Senator Marco Rubio on the heels of the first Republican National debate of the 2016 Presidential race. During the debate, Fox’s Megyn Kelly (who is awesome, but, nevertheless) mischaracterized Rubio’s stance on abortion as allowing for exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

Rubio corrected the record, indicating his position on abortion does not now nor has ever included allowances for rape and incest. After hearing this exchange – and sensing Republican red-meat – the ever-vigilant yet under-performing CNN felt compelled to investigate the accuracy of Rubio’s claim and invited the unsuspecting Senator to appear on the network the following morning to clarify things. In other words: CNN was prepared to unleash a typical liberal “gotcha” interview on the topic of abortion with a high-profile Republican they view as a real threat to the Democratic status quo. Knowing that whenever abortion can be discussed within the context of rape and incest it’s a win-win for pro-choice liberals, how could CNN resist? They couldn’t.

Armed with undeniable evidence that Rubio had indeed voted for a bill that (gasp!) included: “a carve-out for rape and incest,” the ever-confident Cuomo, suggested that Rubio had his own record wrong and asked if that were something he’d like to correct. Unfortunately for Cuomo, that’s as far as the ‘gotcha’ part of Plan A went. Rubio noted that virtually every pro-life senator supported the bill in question, exceptions and all, (double-gasp!) and, for that matter, so did every major pro-life group because the bill prevents abortions. Oops.

Not willing to let a perfectly good ‘gotcha’ moment slip away, Cuomo shot back: “But it included the exception.” Rubio conceded the point and reminded Cuomo that, “Any bill that reduces the number of abortions is a bill that I’m going to support.”

Here, playing out in living color (see the video – here – thanks to the Blaze who I’d rather link to than CNN), is the classic rape-incest tactic pro-choice proponents are so fond of employing. ‘You say life begins at conception, so how can you support rape or incest exceptions?’ And on the flip side: “You don’t allow for rape or incest exceptions?? Barbarian!’ Like the race-card, it’s the same old song and dance they’ve been playing for decades. And for good reason – it usually works.

But Rubio was having none of it. In an admirable attempt to respond in good faith (as though the entire exchange thus far had merely been a case of Cuomo’s legitimate lack of understanding) Rubio suggested that Cuomo could: “Think about it this way. I’m in favor of a 20 week abortion ban. Does that mean I’m in favor of abortions at 19 weeks? No. Any bill that reduces the number of abortions is a bill that I’m going to support.”

Bam! So simple a caveman could understand it! This is where a reasonable journalist concedes to the water-tight logic, realizes his gotcha tactic didn’t work and moves on. Instead the now visibly agitated pro-choice proponent who also moonlights as an objective CNN anchor doubled down: “I don’t think it’s an analogy. But the bill did have that carve-out and you said you’ve never been near it.”

Really?! This is where I realize how much better a man Rubio is than me. Rubio had just finished explaining – and in rather simple and eloquent terms – that Cuomo was committing a basic non-sequitur fallacy wherein Cuomo’s desired conclusion doesn’t follow from his premise. In caveman terms: Just because one votes for an abortion bill that allows for rape and incest exceptions does not mean that one must advocate for those exceptions as part of his own stance on abortion.

Politics has been described as the art of compromise. Both Rubio and Cuomo understand that. Rubio voted for the bill because he – and every other pro-life senator and group – understood it was a reasonable compromise that would prevent abortions and had no chance of passing otherwise. That’s reality. The exception clauses had to be put in the bill in order to satisfy the other side of the PC rape-incest argument that cries “barbarian” without it. There’s no doubt Cuomo knows this (stay tuned). There’s no question about it. He’s not stupid. But he, like many other PC proponents, sees the whole tragic rape-incest phenomenon as the perfect means of forcing pro-life proponents into a no-win, catch-22 scenario.

Make no mistake about it. Cuomo and his PC cronies have no more compassion for rape and incest victims than do pro-life proponents like Marco Rubio. In fact, I suggest they have less compassion because they are the ones who are all too eager to exploit the tragedies of rape and incest simply to benefit their own political agenda – which is keeping abortion legal at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.

Want proof? Exhibit B: After failing to trap Rubio in what instead turned out to be his own non-sequitur fallacy, Cuomo predictably reverted back to plan B, which, in a nutshell, states that if your pro-life opponent admits to not allowing for rape and incest exceptions, suggest he’s holding on to a backwards, barbaric position: “But let’s take your position as you’ve presented it this morning. To not have a carve-out for rape and incest is also something that seems very backward looking in terms of the cultural mores that we have today. Why do you not see rape and incest as areas for potential carve-outs even if you are pro-life?”

Blood boiling yet? Rubio, as usual, proceeded with poise and grace. Me? Not so much. This is the point where I need to take a break or I might say something I’ll regret later. My next blog entry will continue with analysis of this – shall we say – fascinating exchange.

Planned Parenthood Exposed. Again.

by Roger Resler

I applaud the Center For Medical Progress on the release of their latest undercover video exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts. My understanding is that there are more videos to come and the hope is that the impact of these videos will create enough ruckus for Congress to finally discontinue its annual multi-million-dollar donation to the abortion behemoth.

Still, it’s frustrating that it takes something like this to get people’s attention and spur action. Unfortunately the old adage, “out of sight, out of mind,” remains true. Nevertheless, thanks to the CMP, we now not only have the optics, we have the disturbing audio (and transcript) to solidify the deal.

It comes as no surprise that Planned Parenthood is profiting from baby body parts. They profit from killing them in the first place, so why not double-dip? What is surprising – shocking even – is the cavalier language used in the video by Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood, as she casually describes the destruction of unborn humans over lunch.

In the video, actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company meet with Nucatola at a busy restaraunt to discuss how they might acquire specific human body parts from Planned Parenthood. According to CMP’s press release, Nucatola “has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.” So when Nucatola callously mentions that:

 “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

she knows what she’s talking about.

For those who’ve researched and studied the barbaric phenomenon known as legal abortion for decades, the idea that large, for-profit abortion providers consciously strategize on how best to preserve specific fetal body parts while killing unborn humans is nothing new. What is new is the fact that CPM has managed to expose the casual dialogue we always knew went on behind closed doors.

Predictably, Planned Parenthood insists that it has done nothing wrong. Eric Ferraro, Vice President of Communications for Planned Parenthood Federation of America suggests that the transfer of fetal body parts is done “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Ferraro goes on to suggest that the CPM is a “well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services” and describes the video as “heavily edited,” and “secretly recorded.” The “heavily edited” allegation falls apart immediately since CPM has also released the complete, hours-long video. As far as “secretly recorded” is concerned, yeah, that’s the whole idea. The point is that Nucatola obviously doesn’t know she’s being recorded, otherwise she wouldn’t be casually talking about her proficiency at selective destruction and preservation of various fetal body regions during abortions.

This video is shocking and revealing in more ways than one. Obviously Planned Parenthood abortionists understand what pro-life proponents have been trumpeting for years. Newsflash: Unborn humans slated for abortion have human body parts. Sort of makes it a bit more challenging to continue promoting the notion that what is destroyed in an abortion procedure is just “a cluster of cells.”

That, of course, is still the pro-abortion party line. “Move along folks, no real humans are being destroyed here. Just cell clusters that resemble human body parts that we donate to science.” This time, however, thanks to the hard work and tenacity of CPM, the world can see behind the smoke and mirrors.