Those who think nothing of violently slaughtering pre-born children are now directing their rage against the Catholic Church.

A Catholic Archbishop is savaged in Belgium; protestors at a Catholic Church in Spain block exits and doors; in Chile demonstrators interrupt Mass, demolish confessionals, rip out pews and paint profane sacrilegious graffiti throughout the church.

Pro-abortion feminists under the guise of promoting “choice” carried out these and other attacks in the last few months. Their actions make it seem that they have declared war on the Catholic Church with no regard for parishioners, common decency or law.

Welcome to the pro-choice Jihad.

Read more

Mother of 12 regrets her early support for abortion “rights”

Thirty-nine years ago nine black-robed men handed feminists a triumph that would try our souls, and — I have come to believe — find them wanting.

On Jan. 22, 1973, when the Sisterhood is Powerful crowd rejoiced at their Roe v. Wade victory, I was with them, a Washington, D.C., radical feminist scholar/abortion rights advocate, much in demand as a spokeswoman by virtue of my motherhood. After all, who better to illustrate the righteous need for abortion than a young woman with a future, already encumbered by a 3-year-old in daycare?

Five years later in San Francisco, on the morning of my own abortion, I felt proud of our feminist legacy — and even a little righteous, as though exercising my “right to choose” was a sacrament.

Read more

Writer pokes big holes in pro-abortion ideology

During the last decade or so, pro-lifers have worked to defeat the central pro-choice claim that abortion is necessary to women’s health and well-being. We’ve uncovered medical data revealing the short-term and long-term damage caused by abortion to a woman’s body. We’ve brought to light stories of women who have regretted their abortions. And we’ve spent considerable time and treasure giving women in crisis the practical tools necessary to bring their unborn children to term—since most women experience the abortion right as anything but the boon to women that feminists often claim it is. The once-ridiculed notion that one could be both pro-woman and pro-life has finally made its mark.

Yet, despite the gains pro-lifers have made in this regard, pro-choice feminists still adhere to another set of arguments entirely, arguments that resound in a popular slogan: “get your hands off my body.” In this view, because women, rather than men, get pregnant, a pregnancy forced by abortion restrictions signifies a basic gender inequality that no practical, pro-life social supports can alleviate, no matter what the medical data (which they still consider questionable) say about abortion’s aftermath. Indeed, “forced” pregnancy, for the most radical of pro-choice scholars and jurists, amounts to something akin to military conscription. As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey nearly twenty years ago, “[Abortion restrictions] conscript women’s bodies into [the service of the State], forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and … provide years of material care.”

Read more

Deconstructing the Essential Father


Marxist feminists and others have seized upon this notion of male domination and concluded that all men oppose women.  They then urge the “deconstruction” and “deculturation” of fatherhood in the interest of producing a genderless society in which there can be no possibility of male oppression.  Such a revolution, however, if it could be brought about, would mean the end of both fatherhood and motherhood.  What these revolutionaries fail to understand is that fatherhood is of indispensable significance and should not be rejected and replaced, but redeemed and restored.

Read more

The Dearth of Mothers on today’s Supreme Court


A recent NYT article by David Leonhardt  (“A Labor Market Punishing to Mothers“) points out:

The last three men nominated to the Supreme Court have all been married and, among them, have seven children. The last three women — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Harriet Miers (who withdrew) — have all been single and without children.

This little pattern makes the court a good symbol of the American job market.

The article continues with one of my favorite arguments, that that the ‘glass ceilings’ that persist in the American job market have more to do with the demands of parenthood (borne predominately by women) than gender discrimination.   And, as Leonhardt points out:

The fact that the job market has evolved in this way is no accident. It’s a result of policy choices. As Jane Waldfogel, a Columbia University professor who studies families and work, says, “American feminists made a conscious choice to emphasize equal rights and equal opportunities, but not to talk about policies that would address family responsibilities.”

Read more

Matt C. Abbott’s column: ‘The effects of divorce on children’ by Barbara Meng

A little boy who had become very troublesome finally admitted to his teacher that his parents were divorcing and told her it was his fault. He then added, “I asked my mother if she still loved dad. She said she did. I asked my dad, and he said he still loved her, so I knew it had to be my fault.” This is not uncommon.

Until 1969 the permanence of marriage was supported not only by the Church, which has consistently forbidden divorce and remarriage, but also by legal and cultural mores. It was only after 1969, when so-called “no-fault divorce” was legalized in California (and spread rapidly to other states) that a seismic revolution was unleashed.

The no-fault divorce laws, written and backed by feminists and other supporters of the feminist revolution, were touted as a way to finally free women from having to stay in unhappy marriages. Prior to this they could divorce only upon proof of adultery, cruelty, or incompatibility. Men, too, rejoiced in the hope of easy divorce without lawyers’ fees.

A number of assumptions were made: 1) If parents are happier, then the children will be happier; 2) it would be much better for children to grow up in an environment free from bickering, etc.; 3) even if children are distressed by the divorce, they’re resilient and will soon recover.

In 1971, Judith Wallerstein began a longitudinal study on the effects of divorce on children. It’s the only study in the world that follows from childhood into full adulthood the lives of numerous individuals whose parents divorced. Her first book looked at people’s lives ten years after their parents’ divorces. She published additional findings every five years thereafter for twenty-five years after the divorces. Her findings were startling. She stated that our society has made “unwarranted assumptions” about how children cope with their parents’ divorce. They have done this, she suggests, because of their own desires. And these false notions underlie our policies on divorce today (Wallerstein, Lewis & Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Hyperion, 2000. Henceforth WLB).

Read more