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.

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.

Gosnell Guilty!

by Roger Resler

Things don’t seem to be going well for the pro-abortion lobby in the U.S. in recent weeks. Following on the heels of Planned Parenthood of Florida’s pro-infanticide slip of the tongue in March and Live Action’s undercover exposé of late-term abortionist, Le Roy Carhart last week, the conviction today of late-term abortionist, Kermit Gosnell is the latest in what may be a lasting trend. To those of us who consider the evil of induced abortion on an almost daily basis, Gosnell’s conviction is a no-brainer. It’s nearly impossible to believe that anyone could legitimately fail to grasp that what Gosnell does on a routine basis – simply stated: killing babies – is immoral; beyond any reasonable doubt illegal and should be condemned by even the most pro-abortion of pro-abortionists.

It would have been a sorry state of affairs had this blatant killer been acquitted. That he was not at least bodes well for the future. In the past, convictions such as this one have been appealed and overturned by a judge. Other similar convictions have stood, but typically on the basis of maternal death. In 2007, the aforementioned Le Roy Carhart – of recent Live Action fame – was convicted of performing illegal “partial-birth abortions” and the conviction was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. The difference with the Gosnell case is that the conviction is based exclusively on the value of the baby. The implication is that a “person” comes to exist at birth which makes birth the moral dividing line between legal abortion and illegal infanticide.

While the birth-line may make legal interpretations more convenient (at least to a certain extent), from a rational and scientific standpoint, human life has clearly begun long before birth – as any expectant mother beyond quickening knows.

While we can definitely celebrate the trend toward fetal-value-based legal convictions as a positive development, the next logical step will be to point out the irrationality of protecting human beings only after they manage to escape the confines of the womb intact and breathing.



We knew it was bad, but…

by Roger Resler

I’ve been writing and producing media content on the subject of abortion for decades. I’ve debated “hard-core” pro-abortionists in online discussions who were either born without a conscience or have numbed what they were born with into irrelevancy. I think I’ve seen and heard it all. And then along comes another Live Action undercover video. It’s not easy to watch, but everyone – whether you’re pro-life, pro-choice or have no opinion on abortion – everyone needs to watch this video: click here to watch.

How does one describe what Lila’s organization repeatedly captures on video? Stomach turning comes to mind, yet seems inadequate. The only analog I can think of would be a slave-trader who treats the human beings under his charge as commodities while still recognizing their humanness. Used to be – back in the good ‘ole days – that pro-abortionists knew they couldn’t gain public approval for abortion while simultaneously acknowledging the humanity of the unborn. It was merely a “fetus” they reassured us, not a baby.

As late as 2001 pro-choice cheerleader Marian Faux  adamantly insisted that while “The fetus may be like a baby in some respects,” it is “emphatically not a baby.” (Faux, pg. 149). In 1991, during a live Phil Donahue taping in Wichita, Kansas, when asked about the fate of babies who survive abortion (see for example the story of Melissa Ohden), Faye Wattleton, then president of Planned Parenthood answered: “I do not accept that a fetus is a baby. It is a fetus.” Apparently Wattleton missed the point of the question which was concerned with babies who survive abortions. But for Wattleton and Faux, and the host of other pro-choice proponents they speak for, abortion is morally acceptable because a fetus is “emphatically not a baby.”

Yet here, in the latest Live Action undercover video, we have an abortionist (how much more pro-choice does it get?) brazenly acknowledging that he’s killing babies on a routine basis and does so as casually as roasting meat in a crock-pot. Has the world gone completely insane?

What is it going to take to get Americans upset about abortion? If the only way to change things were to mobilize an army and fight a civil war, I could see how that might present a difficult challenge. But the fact of the matter is, all we really need to do is vote pro-life en masse. The problem is it’s going to take a lot of us getting so upset that we remember these videos every time we go to the ballot box.

Another sorry testament about this – beyond, of course, the fact that Dr. Carhart and other abortionists routinely kill unborn babies – is that if this and other Live Action videos had instead exposed evil gun lobbyists casually talking about the effectiveness of semi-automatics on school children or oil barons yucking it up on their private jets en route to a New York country club you can bet they would be receiving multiple plays on every major media outlet across the country with bold headlines demanding action and guest appearances on late-night talk shows. As it is, it’s up to us, Live Action, a few good bloggers and Fox News to pique the conscience of a nation.

The video closes with the definition of “inhuman” as follows:

  1. Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
  2. Not human in nature or character

After giving the matter some additional thought, I may have a phrase that captures the essence of what Live Action has captured on video: civilized barbarity.

A person’s a person, even if Dr. Seuss threatens to sue

by Roger Resler

The recurring maxim expressed by “Horton” the elephant in Dr. Seuss’s classic story Horton Hears a Who, goes like this: “A person’s a person, no matter how small.” So certain is this truth to Horton, that he takes it as being self-evident. His actions throughout the story are admirably consistent with this assertion and the moral implications that accompany it.

While enjoying a bath in a river, Horton’s large ears pick up on a tiny voice emanating from a speck of dust as it flutters by. While Horton never sees the person producing the voice – since that person is too tiny to be seen by an elephant – he, nevertheless, realizes that there must be a person there since he can clearly hear the voice coming from the speck of dust. In fact, there is apparently an entire city – if not a planet – consisting of many “Who’s” living on that speck of dust.

Trouble enters the story when Horton’s animal friends reject the foolish notion that there could be any kind of life, much less a person, living on a speck of dust. They accordingly ridicule Horton for believing in such nonsense. Eventually, in an effort to relieve Horton of his delusions, it is decided that the dust speck should be boiled in oil. Knowing that this would mean a sudden and violent destruction of Who civilization (resisting the desire for a Roger Daltrey joke here), Horton does everything in his power to save the dust speck from such a terrible fate; because, “after all, a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

In the end, the Who’s concerted effort at noise-making generates enough decibels to register in the ears of Horton’s skeptical friends. Once they realize they had been wrong in their criticism, their mood changes dramatically and, once again, in accordance with the truth that “a person’s a person, no matter how small,” they cease their attempt to destroy the dust speck (which they now realize would be immoral) and everyone lives happily ever after – that is until pro-life advocates wanted to express the same truth to a skeptical world.

The irony is that the creator of Horton, the Who’s and Whoville itself, the late Theodore Geisel, apparently preferred to identify with the skeptics rather than those advancing the same truth his hero expresses when it comes to the controversy surrounding the morality of abortion. My introduction to this bizarre turn of events came a few days ago from someone who commented on the trailer for my book Compelling Interest. In both the book and the trailer, we quote this phrase of Dr. Seuss (or more precisely Horton) because we agree with it.

While commenting on the trailer, smitelystacey, asks if we are aware that Dr. Seuss, “never intended his quote to be used in this manner” and that, “he threatened to sue an anti-abortion group for using his quote [on their letterhead] before he died, and his widow has also spoken out against people hijacking his work to support their own agendas.”


I’m sorry but this is one of those things that just takes the cake. No, in fact, I was not aware of Dr. Seuss’s antipathy toward the pro-life agenda, nor would I ever have imagined such a thing. Admittedly, I’ve seen some strange things in my near half-century on this earth, but the irony of Dr. Seuss threatening to sue a pro-life group for using the phrase “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” when they agree with the premise, is certainly unexpected. Upon further investigation I learned that Dr. Seuss was apparently quite liberal and – it would appear – was either pro-choice on abortion or at least opposed to the pro-life agenda.

Of course threatening to sue and actually being able to sue are two different things. I’m reasonably confident that Dr. Seuss had no exclusive copyright on the phrase “A person’s a person, no matter how small” nor – more importantly – on the moral truth behind the phrase. Even if that had been the case, it’s still quite legal for anyone to quote the phrase provided they properly attribute it to Dr. Seuss. Even skeptics who don’t believe that “a person’s a person no matter how small” are free to quote the phrase. But the idea that Geisel would threaten to sue a pro-life group for using the phrase, and that his widow has “spoken out against people hijacking his work to support their own agendas” is jaw dropping in light of the moral implications behind Horton’s sudden awareness of the existence of microscopic human life.

If pro-life people wanted to misuse the quote or twist it to mean something different from the truth expressed by Horton, I could understand the Geisel’s righteous indignation. As it is, pro-lifers use the quote precisely because they agree with it! It would be like the police department threatening to sue security guards for suggesting their job also exists “To protect and to serve.”

There is abundantly more objective evidence supporting the fact that human life exists long before it can be registered by adult sensory perception than there is for the existence of barely audible Who’s living on a speck of dust. If the Geisel’s don’t/didn’t believe that human fetuses or embryos are persons, they are free to disbelieve, but such skepticism is perfectly analogous to the villains in the Horton story who also don’t believe human life could exist at a microscopic level. The truth expressed in the phrase: “A person’s a person no matter how small” remains valid in both cases. The irony is beyond palpable.

smitelystacey closes her remarks (I’m assuming a female gender here, my apologies if I’m mistaken) by suggesting that we should: “Keep your personal opinions away from women’s bodies, and don’t steal a dead man’s work in order to gain support for your erroneous life views,” – as though the assertion that: “A person’s a person, no matter how small” only represents my (erroneous!) “personal opinion” and only infringes on “women’s bodies” when it’s expressed by me and other pro-life proponents rather than by Horton the elephant in a children’s book. Apparently Horton knew how to use the phrase in a non-erroneous manner.

After the dust settles (pun intended, feel free to roll eyes) pro-lifers, like Horton, will continue to operate under the self-evident truth that a person’s a person, no matter how small and will consistently recognize the moral implications of that truth to human life at any stage of development regardless of Theodore Geisel’s political views or pre-mortem threats of imminent lawsuits.

Am I living on Mars?

by Roger Resler

The callousness of the “tolerant” pro-choice left never ceases to mystify me – at least until the shock wears off and I force myself to see things from their shallow, “politically correct” point of view. Case in point: actor Mehcad Brooks’ tawdry video “celebrating” his and Jane Roe’s 40th Anniversary. (It must have been an arranged marriage given that he wasn’t even alive in 1973). Produced through the auspices of the Center For Reproductive Rights, the video is so revolting – when one considers the subject matter – that I refuse to dignify it with a link. You can readily find it online. By now you’ve probably seen at least snippets on TV anyway.

The silky, smirking Brooks chortles: “Oh, hey baby. Did you think I forgot?” as he sniffs a rose and puts his cognac down while sexy jazz plays and a fireplace burns in the background. “All these years,” he smugly expounds, “so many people said we’d never make it. They’ve been trying to tear us apart. Take you away. Put limits on you. On me. On us.”

As is common for typically question-begging pro-choice logic, Brooks and Roe’s allegorical relationship only manages to keep itself out of the realms of sheer barbarity when viewed from the narrow perspective of “reproductive rights.” But there is a more subtle truth hidden behind the apparent irony of a man starring in a video that is intended to celebrate “women’s rights.” Townhall’s Katie Pavlich observes with respect to pro-choice proponents, “it’s not that they don’t want men involved, they simply want men to regurgitate talking points and celebrate abortion when it’s convenient.” Pavlich also notes that: “It’s no wonder men in our culture today don’t respect women as they should, because they aren’t required to.”

While Pavlich’s points are certainly valid, the truth is that the adoption of abortion as a natural staple of “women’s reproductive rights” is actually driven by male interests and has been from the beginning.

The seeming paradox of the male “reproductive freedom” advocate makes sense when understood within the misogynistic context of escaping the moral consequences of one’s actions at the expense of female biology. Readily available abortion relieves men of moral obligation and child-support responsibilities. It is precisely the avoidance of this moral obligation that MSNBC’s “The Cycle” co-host, Toure, extolled on Friday, suggesting that the availability of abortion saved his life because he wasn’t ready to be a dad. Think about that for a moment. Toure explains that he was “in a committed relationship with a woman” that he paradoxically “knew was just not the one.” According to Toure, “She also knew it probably wasn’t going to work out. And then she got pregnant” as though Toure himself was a sideline observer in the phenomenon. “I knew that pregnant woman and I were not going to be able to form a lasting family.” Years later, Toure explains, he met another woman, married her and “after we decided to get pregnant, I went to her doctor’s appointments – our doctor’s appointments, with joy.”

Surprisingly, though, Toure’s “lifelong commitment to abortion rights was… jostled” by witnessing their “boy grow inside her”  and noticing “how human they are” during the second trimester as “we watched him move around on 3-D sonograms.” Despite this challenge to his pro-choice commitment, Toure remained pro-choice because he “cannot imagine arguing against a woman’s right to control her body and thus her life.”

Ironic, isn’t it, that Toure identifies his “lifelong commitment to abortion rights” with “a woman’s right to control her body and thus her life” and yet he’s specifically grateful that abortion was available to save his life. Consider the male-centricity in Toure’s assertion that: “I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place.”

Aside from the fact that abortion was there to save him, one wonders how exactly Toure “fell into a bad situation” in the first place. Even when hammered, a typical male needs a minimum level of functioning cognition in order to “fall into” the act that leads to pregnancy.

Given the male interest in avoiding long-term obligations that stem from one’s inability to keep from stumbling into “bad situations” coupled with the fact that men don’t have to undergo abortion procedures, it’s no great surprise that men have been strong supporters of “women’s reproductive rights” since before, during and after Roe v. Wade. As I point out in Compelling Interest (Chapter 5) several of the key arguments Sarah Weddington used while arguing Roe originated with men. In particular: Roy Lucas and Cyril Means, Jr. That these arguments turned out to be largely fallacious illustrates that the establishment of a moral basis for abortion on demand, secured by rational logic, was not as important as the benefit men would receive from the creation of “women’s reproductive rights.” Given that backdrop, Brooks and Toure have a lot to celebrate.