Well friends, if you thought it could not get any crazier…. or more despicable…

Time magazine published an article on May 21, 2022 that attempts to link the tragedy perpetrated by the Buffalo shooter to the pro-life movement (which they call the anti-abortion movement). The authors try to portray pro-life people as racists who want to stop the abortion of white babies so that more white people can keep the black and brown people subjugated to their dominance.

In making this assertion, they declare that the abortion movement was born in the 19th century due to “white fears of a declining white birth rate.” They try to place this in the context of white Protestants fearing the immigration of white Catholics and Jews, which does not make any sense. In fact, there was such a concern by Protestants “in the 19th century” about the immigration of Catholics (not Jews) as part of the prevailing anti-Catholic sentiment of the time. It had nothing to do with abortion. I have discussed the history of abortion in my book, and it only became a public issue when the women’s rights movement gained a lot of attention. There ensued a major split between the leadership and a minority faction that wanted to bring abortion into the mix.

Another untruth that the authors perpetrate is that pro-life people want to prevent the abortion of white babies. The truth is that 40% of current surgical abortions are black babies. A minority of abortions are in white women. That is why Planned Parenthood has placed 86% of their abortion clinics in predominately Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. This fact has been decried for years by Alveta King (niece of Martin Luther King, Jr.), and especially in the movie “Blood Money: the Business of Abortion.”

More recently, US House Rep Rep. Burgess Owens delivered an impassioned speech against abortion, arguing that it discriminates against Black women in the United States. He declared that abortion has taken the lives of 20 million Black babies, and that 40% of his race has been exterminated. At the same time, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that restricting abortion would be bad for the economy. Many have expressed outrage at the implication that aborting Black babies is good for the economy.

In fact, the selective elimination of “unfit” black babies (by birth control measures and sterilization of women) was the stated purpose of Margaret Sanger from the beginning. This scandalous racist history actually led to the change of the name of the parent organization to “Planned Parenthood.” However, Sanger was solidly against abortion, which was not practiced by PP until after her death. This assertion by the authors that pro-life people are racists is the practice of racism itself, disguised in a distorted history of which most people are unaware in a blatant attempt to deceive the uneducated. This whole story is accurately told in my book. Here is the link, although it is so goofy and full of distorted quotes and half-truths that I do not recommend you spend any time on it. https://time.com/6178135/buffalo-shooting-abortion-replacement-theory/

In other news… the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco has declared that Nancy Pelosi, who labels herself as a devout Catholic and supports unrestricted abortion at any stage of development (an oxymoron, to say the least), is barred from receiving Holy Communion (in the Archdiocese of San Francisco). The issue of people in high offices in the United States who call themselves Catholics and yet support abortion in defiance of the church’s position on the sanctity of life, has produced a schism within lay Catholics who support one political party or another on other issues as well.

Two days later, Pope Francis addressed participants in the “Let’s Choose Life” march in Rome, applauding their “commitment in favor of life and in defense of conscientious objection, the exercise of which is often attempted to be restricted.” “Unfortunately, in recent years there has been a shift in the common mentality, and today we are increasingly inclined to think that life is an asset at our total disposal, which we can choose to manipulate, give birth to or let die as we please, as the exclusive outcome of an individual choice.” “Let us remember that life is a gift from God,” he said. “It is always sacred and inviolable, and we cannot silence the voice of conscience.” These statements will, no doubt, be welcomed by Bishops who have tried to give guidance to lay people on the issue of why political leaders can call themselves Catholic and take communion while aggressively supporting abortion, but other Catholics are called upon the respect the sanctity of life. However, the issue is far from settled.

On May 19, while the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the topic of “Abortion Access and Care,” pro-abortion activist Aimee Arrambide affirmed her belief that everyone can decide for themselves what a woman is and that men can get pregnant and have abortions. Twitter reportedly lit up with people mocking her. One person observed that Arramide has admitted her belief that men have a right to an opinion on abortion because they can get pregnant and have an abortion. The pro-abortion faction has tried to discredit opinions by men by saying it is exclusively a female issue since only women get pregnant. It keeps getting crazier…

Vice President Harris has opined that a SCOTUS decision that the people in the individual states have the constitutional right to regulate abortion under the 10th amendment would keep women from exercising a “right” to an abortion (which is, in fact, not a “right” under the constitution or any US statute). She also attempted to cause concern that “rights” like “gay marriage” and “use of contraceptives” could likewise be regulated by the states. Well, Ms. Harris, they are already. Critics are unsure if she is ignorant of how state laws work and what is/is not federal law and what is protected constitutionally, or whether she is just trying to inflame the ignorant.

On the other hand, the New York Times, despite publishing chilling pro-abortion articles, published this guest essay “When Abortion is Pro-Life” by Dr. Matthew Loftus on May 20, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/opinion/abortion-doctor-pro-life.html Dr. Loftus is pro-life and was greatly conflicted when he had to perform a late term abortion… to save the life of the mother who was bleeding to death.

An Oklahoma bill has been sent to the governor for signature, which is expected. The bill bans any procedures that “cause the death of an unborn child,” which is defined as a “human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” Exceptions are provided for rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger. As one might expect, there is much acrimony among pro-abortion people.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the Dobbs case by the end of June, before going into recess. Due to the now famous “leak” of a draft of the ruling, it is widely believed that the majority of the court will rule that the 10th amendment to the constitution is unambiguous in giving to the individual states the right to regulate issues not expressively retained to the “United States” (that is, the federal government, or Congress). Therefore, the issue of abortion, which was not at any time a topic of conversation in drafting the constitution or any of its amendments, must be regulated in the individual states by the elected representatives of the people in those states.

It has been largely assumed that this draft was leaked by a clerk (typically a very bright attorney who was able to get a plumb of a job working for the court), and it has been reported that the Justices are very unhappy with the betrayal of confidence. Much comment has also been rendered on the long term impact on the court. However, experts also say that the perpetrator should have been quickly uncovered. Someone on the inside contacted pro-abortion activists and coordinated the leak with demonstrations planned to take place immediately after the release.

What if the source was not a lower level clerk but one of the dissenting, very liberal female Justices who supports unrestricted abortion… maybe somebody appointed by President Obama. If the source of the leak is not discovered among the lower clerks, then one has no choice but to suspect an activist Justice. That would make the Supreme Court a political activist organization that, in future, could shape public opinion through leaked information and demonstrations targeted at intimidating dissenting Justices and potentially carrying out violence against their families. The importance of a resolution to this issue and a removal of the guilty party cannot be overstated.