Donate search


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print

Notre Dame profs: Pro-life movement rooted in racism

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.”

Later, 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 nation.

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.

Gardy continues:

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.”

Graubart added

 “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 decision.

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 am.

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.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • send Email
  • print Print


More Top Stories

Biden Maintains Lead In South Carolina

So far, Joe Biden’s South Carolina firewall is holding according to a new poll from the Palmetto State.

The End of Klobuchar and Steyer. Bernie Still Standing.

Well, I admit they can hang on a bit more, but Tom Steyer was a useless waste of oxygen on that debate stage. For a man so opposed to climate change, he could have saved the planet by just not talking …

Candidate Debates Are Dead, So Please Bury Them

By 2024, we need to have come up with a better way–whether that’s an AMA or some other forum, we can’t have any more Romper Rooms. It’s embarrassing to America and to our nation around the world. Deb …