Leftists’ Muddled (And Frightening) Message on Life, Marriage, and Family
From marriage, to life, to family, leftists’ message has become so muddled and confusing, it is almost impossible to discern where they truly want America to go besides down.
In an effort to advance “women’s rights,” liberal feminists have championed abortion for decades. But to be consistent in their justification of elective abortions, they have to defend sex-selective abortion, a practice that has resulted in disproportionately large swaths of female populations missing worldwide.
Only a handful of states in the U.S. have outlawed the practice, and it is well documented that Planned Parenthood has refused to admit that they will not perform sex-selective abortions unless it has been made illegal.
Arguably, few institutions are more deceptively named than Planned Parenthood; they are in the very lucrative business of preventing parenthood through abortion.
Dana Singise, the vice president for Public Policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has strongly denounced an attempt by lawmakers to ban abortions after 20 weeks. She calls a bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham to ban late term abortions “an extreme agenda with no basis in medicine – and using junk science to score political points.”
Many Americans consider killing viable children in the womb “extreme,” but apart from that, her “junk science” claim reveals the radical nature of her deceptive rhetoric.
Much like the so-called “global warming” debate in the scientific community, there is no consensus in the medical community about the necessity of late term abortions.
On the contrary, according to gynecologist and former abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, late term abortions should be banned and are not necessary for the health of the mother. In a testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice he stated:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating”pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those hundreds of cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
Nevertheless, Singise added that “abortion later in pregnancy is very rare and often happens under heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.”
Though she would have us believe that the procedure is rare and not usually elective but necessary for the health of the mother, that’s just not true, according to Dr. Martin Haskell, who is credited with inventing a partial-birth abortion procedure.
He stated that “most of [his] abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range… In [his] particular case, probably 20 percent are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.”
Myriad abortionists that perform late term abortions report doing so for primarily healthy mothers and babies.
The leftist message on marriage is just as confusing.
Leftists claim that marriage must be redefined to suit the desires of consenting adults, but to be consistent, some leftists are now admitting that they want the “repressive” institution of marriage obliterated altogether. One such leftist advocate is Annamarie Jagose, an internationally renowned expert in feminist studies who advocates for the end of marriage and who called marriage “absurdly constrained and increasingly irrelevant.”
But in wanting to obliterate marriage altogether, at least Jagose is somewhat consistent. As Heritage has explained, once you remove the norms of permanence, exclusivity, monogamy, and sexual complementarity, we are left with only government mandated parameters to define the marriage bond.
If marriage isn’t founded on a comprehensive union made possible by the sexual complementarity of a man and a woman, then why can’t it occur among more than two people? If marital union isn’t founded on such sexual acts, then why ought it be sexually exclusive? If marriage isn’t a comprehensive union and has no intrinsic connection to children, then why ought it be permanent?
This isn’t to say that couples couldn’t decide to live out these norms where temperament or taste so motivated them; but that there is no reason of principle to demand it of them. So legally enshrining this alternate view of marriage would undermine the norms whose link to the common good justifies state action in the first place.
In one of the Left’s latest assaults on reason and basic human dignity, they are attempting to sell insurance under Obamacare to young adults with some rather strange advertisements. Some of them depict– or glorify – young people leading promiscuous lifestyles, who, as a result of said lifestyles, should probably sign up for coverage under the new health care law.
In the following ad, they provide this caveat:
*The pill doesn’t protect you from STDs, condoms and common sense do that.
Clear as a bell, right? Not so much…