A group of Notre Dame educators recently sat down to discuss
abortion rights at an event hosted by Irish 4 Reproductive Health. During that
event, the four professors made up facts, rewrote history, and all but excommunicated
the entire pro-life movement.
A report of the event by The Irish Rover’s Ellie Gardy (whose coverage is an excellent model of unbiased journalism, by the way) reveals some startling statements from the faculty quartet during the discussion which followed a presentation of the Netflix documentary Reversing Roe.
“The panel of Notre Dame professors—Professor of Gender Studies Pam Butler, Professor of History Karen Graubart, Professor of Africana Studies and Political Science Dianne Pinderhughes, and Professor of Political Science Christina Wolbrecht—provided commentary following the documentary.
Pinderhughes began by stating her view on the underlying motives of the pro-life movement, saying, “[Abortion] is an issue that allows for an effort to control the place of women. I’m sure you figured that out, or you wouldn’t be at this event. But also how people will reproduce, what the population will be, what it will be like. Those who push so aggressively for reproduction, continued reproduction without any controls, are those who are also more likely to be in support of making sure the country stays predominantly, overwhelmingly white.”
Gardey tells us
Butler agreed with Pinderhughes, insinuating that pro-life activism has emerged from white supremacy: “[Abortion] got politicized in a moment of a white supremacist strategy of the right wing of the Republican party to mobilize a very specific set of evangelical Christians in the United States as a base.”
Abortion statistics belie Pinderhughes’ and Butler’s position. It is well-established fact that abortion hits the black segment of American society hardest. In New York City, more black babies are killed via abortion every year than born alive. Our own Aaron Simms told us nearly a year ago that the abortion rate among black women is almost three times that of white women. Further, abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood’s very founding was the result of an effort to control the black population in the United States. Together, these facts and others prove that it is the abortion business – not some racist segment of evangelical Christians – which wields abortion as a shield against a black takeover of the American demographic.
Further, claims that the pro-life movement has its roots in that “very specific set of evangelical Christians” who happen to be white supremacists would likely come as quite a surprise to minority pro-life stalwarts like the late Mildred Jefferson, co-founder of National Right to Life Council in the early 1970s. And the significantly majority female activity in the pro-life community easily dispatches the notion of chauvinist good-old-boys using the issue to keep their women barefoot and pregnant.
But there is a far more sinister agenda hidden within the
comments, particularly those from Pinderhughes.
The image presented in Pinderhughes’ remarks is one of women being forced to
become pregnant so that they can be kept in their “place”, to use her word. And
so her position in favoring abortion – at least from these remarks – is that
abortion allows women to escape traditional male domination, and that those who
stand against it do so in order to maintain the subjection of women and to
ensure the American populace is “predominantly, overwhelmingly white”.
Pinderhughes twists the term ‘control’ to suit her agenda. On the one hand,
she states that the pro-life platform is intended to control women – obviously
implying that controlling women is bad. On the other, she rails against
“reproduction without any controls”. Control of what? From the context of her
remarks, it is clear she means control of the future racial makeup of the
This is a crucial point, so don’t miss it: Dr. Dianne Pinderhughes – professor of African Studies and Political Science at Notre Dame, former president of the American Political Science Association – is indirectly advocating the use of abortion as a means of leveling the racial playing field through the killing of unborn children on the basis of race. You can call that whatever you like, but there’s already a word for it. Look it up for yourself.
Professor Graubart shared her experience of using in vitro fertilization. She said, “15 years ago, I decided that my career was finally on track. I was a queer single woman with a great job at an Ivy League institution about to get tenure, and I decided that I needed to have a baby… I went to a sperm bank, which is like the center of eugenics, right, that’s what sperm banks are … I was able to get myself pregnant, have a baby, and then create a life for myself using that.”
Though Professor Graubart is right that sperm banks and the ability to design
your baby before conception are at the center of eugenics, she only gives us
half the truth. Eugenics requires not only the selection of preferred
characteristics in born children; it also utilizes the discarding of
non-planned embryos and fetuses which do not possess those preferred
characteristics. Was the guy who impregnated you too short? Was his IQ too low?
Was he farsighted? Too dark-skinned? It’s okay – you can simply abort the child
you created with that Neanderthal and be impregnated using sperm from a tall,
blonde, blue-eyed man of European lineage.
Wolbrecht said, “If you frame [abortion] as a public health issue, this is a procedure like any other one that you have access to, then if the government pays for other forms of insurance, then it should pay for this one. We just had that fight over contraception … There is such disagreement in experience and belief about when life begins that we do have to fall back on this and say okay we have to let people make their own decision.”
“Well, I think one part of it is: when do you define something as a child? I think having borne a child, I can tell you that I don’t think that I had a child [in my womb]. I mean I had a potential child inside me for a number of months, which then developed into a child. I don’t believe in the soul, so that’s not an interesting argument to me, so I think that because science isn’t going to tell us when that clump of cells goes to being a child, that that should then be between you and your doctor to make that decision rather than the government.”
And here is our answer to why we don’t recognize the earliest form of life
inside the human reproductive system. We have to let people make their own
But make no mistake, this decision isn’t truly about deciding whether to
have an abortion – it goes farther back than that. The decision that really
counts – the one upon which all these debates and all the political posturing
rest – is the decision to have sexual intercourse when, where, how, and with
whom we please, and to hell with the consequences.
Never mind that sexually transmitted diseases are rampant and their
incidence continuing to increase.
Never mind the psychological damage caused by repeatedly sharing your most
intimate moments with people who move in and out of your life on a whim.
Never mind the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lives sacrificed on the altar of
momentary pleasure every year.
And never mind the fact that in destroying that most defenseless and
innocent of human forms, you are willfully committing a heinous act of
self-immolation. None of that matters, because you’ve got to have that hit to
satisfy your sexual gratification jones – and not only should no one judge you
for that decision, but we should all pay for the means to prevent and remove
the unwanted consequences of it.
The true wonder of this debate is in why anyone is still asking the question
of when life begins – science has answered it for us over and over again. We
know that from the earliest moments after conception, a ‘potential human’
satisfies all four of the basic functions required for scientists to consider
it alive. We’d fall all over ourselves to call that clump of cells life if it
were discovered on Mars, or even here on Earth inside the reproductive system
of a Pomeranian or quarter horse. Why not inside a human?
No rational human being can excuse such a blatant disregard for life.
Am I passing judgement on those who support abortion? You’re damned right I
Spare me the diatribe about your rights and how I have no place talking
about them because I don’t share your form of genitalia. My authority to speak
on this issue emanates from the fact that I’m a living human being who
recognizes that all lives are valuable, and that I was Divinely spared from
being one of your throw-away clumps of tissue.
Worship your Baal and make your heartless and hedonistic sacrifice, but
don’t expect me to approve or enable that worship.