Protectors of the innocent unborn need to prepare for the impending assault on the right to life, this time waged under the banner of stopping “domestic violence.”
Actually, the first volley has already been fired. Democratic senator Barack Obama recently announced his support of the proposed International Violence Against Women Act, a bill the Family Violence Prevention Fund admits is designed to solidify “women’s access to reproductive health service.”
Mr. Obama is not the first to cloak the reproductive rights agenda in the domestic violence crusade. For years the rad-fems have been working behind the scenes, laying the groundwork for another frontal attack on the culture of life.
At the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Ladies of the Left penned a manifesto called “Reproductive Health Services and Intimate Partner Violence.” This document sheds crocodile tears over the fact that “violence and reproductive health often remain distinct, despite the framing of both issues as essential components of women’s human rights.”
Abortionists often wave the bloody flag that abortion must be legalized or else women will die. Of course they never mention that effective medical treatments are available to save an imperiled woman’s life.
But the public is beginning to see through the subterfuge. So the pro-abortionists have devised a new argument that goes something like this: We have an epidemic of men who abuse their wives and force themselves on their girlfriends. Ergo, the solution is to grant women the right to abort.
Let’s say it politely: Shame on these people for telling such lies.
Professor Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire is the world’s leading researcher on family violence. Earlier this year Dr. Straus published the results of his 32-nation survey of dating couples. This is what he found:
1. Fewer than 11% of couples had engaged in any incident of serious partner aggression in the past year, proving that physical violence between partners is fairly uncommon.
2. Two-thirds of the time the violence was mutual – she slapped him, he shoved her. One of those tit-for-tat affairs.
3. And here’s the shocker: Women were twice as likely to initiate unilateral violence as men. That’s right, the stories about Amy Winehouse using her husband as a “punch-bag” and Hillary Clinton carving up Bill’s jaw turn out to represent a much broader problem.
So why don’t we hear about female violence more often? Well, several reasons.
Abused men are far less likely to call for help (Can you imagine Bill calling down to the state troopers to pull Hillary off his back?). Police may arrest the man, even if he’s the one with the scratches and bruises. Prosecutors scoff at the mention of men injured by their partners. And editors marinated in feminist ideology will do anything to keep the story off the front page.
That bias allows lawmakers to get away with laws bearing one-sided names like the Violence Against Women Act. And it keeps people in a perpetual hysteria over the faux epidemic of wife-battering.
This high-stakes struggle is taking place around the world.
One of the main mischief-makers is the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. Their website calls for ending violence against women which they allege is “widespread.” (Remember, keeping people in a frenzy of fear is how they lock in their funding.)
Their solution to partner abuse? You guessed it: “UNFPA advocates for legislative reform and enforcement of laws for the promotion and the protection of women’s rights to reproductive health choices.”
Amnesty International is another purveyor of the counterfeit claims. In Europe, AI voted to “support the decriminalization of abortion…and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger.” In response, bishops instructed Catholic schools in England and Wales to boycott Amnesty.
In Nicaragua, pro-abortion forces dropped their rhetoric about “reproductive rights” in favor of pushing an agenda of “stopping violence against women.”
Sex-selective abortion, which has snuffed out the lives of 100 million baby girls in China and India, is another battlefront. This moral and demographic travesty exposes the hypocrisy of abortionists who claim they are only trying to help disadvantaged women.
The most obvious cure, and probably the only solution to sex-selective abortions is an outright ban on all abortions — but the baby-killing industry wouldn’t be happy with that.
So they paper over the truth with Orwellian doublespeak about “pre-birth sex selection,” as if we’re flipping some kind of genetic switch. And of course Sen. Obama’s so-called International Violence Against Women Act doesn’t even hint at this modern-day holocaust.
Is anyone pretending to be surprised?
Rate this post:
(7 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Denise Noe said,
I don’t share your views, Mr. Roberts, on banning abortion. However, I recognize the truth that it is at least arguable that abortion itself is a kind of “domestic violence.” The uterus is the natural habitat of the embryo or fetus and that habitat is invaded in an abortion. The embryo or fetus — or “unborn baby” — is torn out of that habitat. Within the first trimester, that tearing requires the tearing apart of limbs, a head, and a torso.
June 30, 2008 at 8:20 pm
mruffolo said,
I observe that feminists play it strict with the definition of abortion/murder, yet loose with the definition of abuse/violence. It seems convenient.
At the end of the day, this is about the government making rules that make it easy for a woman to kill a family. Easy and rewarding divorce, cheap and legal abortion, affirmative action for jobs to get out of the home, among other things.
July 1, 2008 at 8:47 am
shatteredmen said,
The rape and incest idea is a lie too….According to Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, about 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing a mere 1 percent of all abortions
Even smaller numbers represent cases where abortion was indicated to save the mother’s life, despite the fact that saving the mother has served as a pillar for apologists of unfettered abortion rights.
Roe vs Wade itself was based upon a lie:
According to an article published in Focus on Family magazine, 30 Years of Lies, the plaintiff for the Roe v. Wade case, Norma McCorvey, never even got an abortion after lying to her lawyers about being gang-raped. “When she found out the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in legalizing abortion in all 50 states, she was stunned” and attempted suicide, writes Tom Neven.
Sandra Cano, the “Doe” of the companion case known as Doe v. Bolton, claims that she was played as a pawn by her lawyer, who surreptitiously had her sign an affadivit stating that “she had applied for an abortion, had been turned down and had therefore sued the state of Georgia…. This is a lie,” states Cano. She was even
opposed to abortion, so the case was not even representative of her views. Both women have begun new lives as followers of Christ and are seeking to have their infamous cases overturned as part of a campaign called Operation Outcry.
Abortion is also a very powerful polical tool. One has only to look at the ones that demand abortion be kept legal. They use fear to do so. We hear about how many women would die in back alley abortions if it were illegal but we sure do not hear how many die from legal
abortions because often the cause of death is masked by something else.
One thing we seldom hear about also is that it is used to control. As it is, a woman who does not want to be bothered with a child can abort it, or in most states now, give it up by leaving it at a fire station, hospital or other authorized locations no questions
ask…not even who is the father and does he want this child.
We hear about choice…but the choice only belongs to one side. If she does not want the baby…well bye bye baby even if the father wants it. However, if he does not want to be burdened with the responsiblity of a baby..tough luck because she can have that baby and force him to pay for that child for 18 or more years or she can abort it even if he does want it. A Christian prolife ministry has shown that more fathers who had a child aborted on them were remorsful then the women who aborted them.
Carey Roberts wrote: Fathers the fall-guy in the abortion debate
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040304
Third is the decision to get the abortion. As proof of male irresponsibility, people like to cite Carol Gilligan’s famous study, In a Different Voice, which found that in one-third of cases, the father influenced the woman’s decision to get the abortion.
But citing this and similar studies reverses the argument. If the decision to get an abortion rests with the father one-third of the time, then clearly, the woman has made the decision in the other two-thirds of the cases.
But even Gilligan’s one-third figure is suspect. A few years ago, Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth interviewed 1,000 fathers of aborted children. Their book, Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love reveals that only 4% of the women had been opposed to getting the abortion in the first place.
So the myth that women get an abortion because of coercion by marauding sexual predators is an urban legend that serves to shield us from one simple fact: abortion is by and large a female-dominated decision.
Radical feminist do have an agenda. Many of them do not want to eliminate “male control” (that has already been done), but far more of them then we know of want to eliminate men totally. They use the VAWA to help with this and abortion is just another means to be in total control.
I contend that this page shows the real gender feminist agenda:
http://shatterdmen.com/Bitter.htm
July 2, 2008 at 3:01 am
John Maguire said,
I don’t remember the details, but the state propaganda machine was putting out messages like: Poland is oppressing us. We only want “room to live.” “We will no longer put up with the violence of the current national boundaries,” and so on.
Had Goebels and Hitler possessed the required imagination, they would have had the “Violence Against Aryans Act” passed. Such a law would have allowed the arrest of Jews at will because the very name of the law defines a political enemy. (Jews of course were arrested at will as the years went on–but just think about it–it’s amazing that these masters of propaganda didn’t have such a law. And perhaps an expert will tell us that they did–I don’t know.)
The “Violence Against Women Act” means nothing more than “Non-Women Are the Enemy.” Goebels would have love it. In whatever hellpit he now burns, if he knows what we are doing in our country, he is grinning about it.
July 2, 2008 at 6:10 am
mruffolo said,
“The number of British girls under the age of 14 having an abortion shot up a shocking 21 percent in 2007.”
“Abortion rates went up for all age groups in England and Wales over this time period, but this jump for those under 14 constituted the most dramatic increase, according to new figures from the Department of Health. The study also revealed a 10 percent rise in abortions for those under the age of 16.”
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5295.3587.0.0
In every case when the mother aborts a developing child, law does not require a father’s consent. Women’s rights, not father or child rights are important to government.
My doctor here in America say that it is unlawful to share with the parents their child’s sexual activity, however, the law requires that the doctor ask for details of the child’s sex life.
July 2, 2008 at 8:54 am