jump to navigation

Abortion developments: judge strikes down sex-selective abortion, college says pro-life talk a form of abuse, Mexico Supremes ban abortion, July 5, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, General Catholic, horror, Interior Life, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
trackback

All kinds of recent developments on the abortion front.  Keeping in line with recent court decisions striking down virtually any limits on the practice of child-murder for (largely) convenience, a black, Obama-appointee federal district court judge ruled Indiana’s ban against abortions performed specifically on a sex- or race-basis unconstitutional:

A federal judge has blocked Indiana’s ban against aborting a fetus based on its sex, race or disability, a law that was set to go into effect Friday.

Indiana is one of two states with bans on obtaining an abortion based on race, gender or ancestry of a fetus. Gov. Mike Pence signed the law in March after it was passed by the Republican-led legislature. A similar law in North Dakota remains in effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect Friday. The injunction was sought by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Pratt, who was nominated by President Obama in 2010, wrote that the ban violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which allows abortions before the point of fetal viability. If a woman choses to get an abortion before that point, a state can’t prohibit her based on her reasons for doing so, she wrote.

She apparently hasn’t seen Maafa21, or was unmoved by it. Since over half of all babies conceived by Americans of African descent end in abortion, this ruling is I guess a bit unsurprising.  Odds are, the judge has had an abortion herself, and, like many post-abortive women, would do anything to justify her amoral act.  Of course, abortion and contraception were both first endorsed and popularized by white eugenicists who sought to use those twin means to radically reduce the population of “undesirable” populations like minorities and those with various disabilities.  All along, however, these white racists have found eager accomplices in the black and other minority communities to help their cause succeed, a nightmare practice which continues to this day.

On another front, the so-called millennial generation, which is widely seen to be the most progressive, areligious generational cohort in US history, is helping pave the way for the persecution of Christians and any who hold traditional moral views.  At Longwood University, it is reported that students believe countering someone’s pro-abort beliefs with pro-life facts constitutes a form of “assualt,” which, presumably, should thus be illegal:

According to an “educational presentation” on the Longwood University website, being an outspoken pro-life advocate may be a form of “assault.”

The presentation, first reported by Campus Reform, lists “an anti-abortion person attack[ing] my pro-choice beliefs” as one of several “examples of assault,” along with “A student slashed my tire (on my car)” and “Almost being raped.” [both of which are, in fact, serious crimes.  So to the generation most mired in deliberate ignorance and blind adherence to leftist propaganda, refuting their amoral, erroneous beliefs now constitutes an assault almost equal to rape.  Childish much?  Even more, how bankrupt are your beliefs and how  unable to argue in favor of them must you be if your response to someone else holding contrary beliefs is to want to throw them in jail?  Is this the United States of America?  Not the one I knew.]

“Assault” is defined in another slide as “verbal or nonverbal derogations of an individual’s unique qualities such as family name or disability.” [How the heck does opposing abortion fall under this definition?  These people couldn’t think their way out of a foot-tall labyrinth.]  

All the more frightening, the university says that sentiment was actually expressed almost 10 years ago.  Boy these fragile snowflakes are going to have a hard time when the hot light of reality finally falls on them.

Finally, some good news for a change – the Mexican Supreme Court has ruled that abortion – currently legal in the federal district around Mexico City only – cannot be legal in the remainder of the country.  I have no idea how they reconciled this dichotomy, but it’s somewhat good news nonetheless:

The Mexican Supreme Court has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed verdict that would have imposed abortion-on-demand during the earliest stages of pregnancy throughout the country.

The justices of the Supreme Court’s First Chamber voted 3-1 against the draft decision, which cites Roe v. Wade to justify requiring all of Mexico’s 31 states to adopt the legal regime currently in use in Mexico City. The Mexican capital allows abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy while applying restrictions in later stages of gestation of the unborn child.

Well, good for Mexico.  But I fear it’s only a matter of time, unless that nation experiences a serious Catholic revival.  So long as contraception is freely available, there will be enormous demand for abortion. Absent a true religious revival/conversion – and the same applies in this nation – eventually, a government will come to power that will give the people what they want – which is to murder the inconvenient “after products” of contraceptive sex.

Comments

1. Margaret Costello - July 9, 2016

Thank you for posting the Maafa21 link…looks neat! God bless~


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: