A NATION IN CRISIS: LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS INTEND TO DESTROY THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
Politicians should articulate sound and rational policy positions for the Nation, and those policy positions should be consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, to preserve and strengthen it, not undermine it. Is that really unreasonable? Surely, politicians cannot and ought not expect the polity to endorse slipshod, simplistic policy prescriptions, especially those prescriptions that are inconsistent with and antithetical to the original meaning of the Constitution and which are inconsistent with and which therefore negatively impinge on or infringe fundamental rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Yet, time and time again we see many Democrats, especially those on the Radical Left of the political spectrum, articulating and supporting policy that, even on a cursory analysis, is inapt and inane, even insane.
From guns, to abortion, to immigration, Democrats have gone off the rails. Yet, many Americans seem to think that Democrats’ policy stances and prescriptions make perfectly good sense, and that these policy positions and policy prescriptions bespeak, rather than, belie, the best interests of the Nation and its people. But, do they? Do they really?
Take one example: guns. To listen to Democrats go on about the need for more and more gun restrictions, one might be led to think that the reasoning behind Democrats’ desire to impose more and more burdensome, even asinine, gun restrictions on law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans is predicated, as they will constantly remind you, on a desire to promote public safety. These Left-wing extremist Democrats suggest they place a premium on human life and therefore hold the moral high ground, implying, then, that political and social Conservatives do not. But is that true? Are Democrats—especially extremists on the Left who yell loudest for more and more restrictive gun measures—the paragons of virtue they claim to be? If you think so, then ask yourself this: How can a politician claim to value human life by denying an individual the most effective means available to defend his or her life and that of innocent others, namely with a firearm, and, yet, encourage the whole-sale taking of life—the most innocent of human life, through the savage practice of abortion.
Can these two policy stances—civilian gun confiscation measures and late term, at will, even at birth, abortion stances be reconciled? Americans have a right to expect—in fact should demand—an answer to this question before jumping on the Radical Left bandwagon. The mainstream media, though, demonstrates no interest in resolving this question. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn’t even bother to ask the question. But, this should come as no surprise to anyone since the mainstream media is no longer the guardian of a free Republic and defender of the Constitution, but, rather, walks in lockstep with extremists in Government—those who desire to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and disassemble our sacred rights and liberties. Rather than taking the would-be destroyers of our Nation to task, we see a seditious Press commending them for it; actively, avidly promoting the Radical Left agenda to the detriment of our Nation and of our people.
But, beyond the wild, fantastic idiocy of the Radical Left’s policy stances, as articulated to the polity—the Radical Left’s policy positions, especially those pertaining to guns and abortion—aren’t even coherent or consistent with each other.
Consider the nonsensical remarks of two representatives of the Radical Left: U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), contender for her Party’s nomination in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election in 2020, and Andrew Cuomo, third term Governor of New York. Both politicians espouse extreme views on firearms’ ownership and possession, on the one hand, and abortion, on the other. Each of them, at once, denies the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable, notwithstanding codification of that primordial right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And, at one and the same time, each argues for a woman’s right to late term, at-will abortion; and each dares to raise abortion to the status of a fundamental right, even though nothing in the Constitution expressly or tacitly supports such a bizarre and outrageous notion.
In this essay, we will look at the gun policy and abortion policy prescriptions of both Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo, in depth. We will demonstrate that, while these Left-wing Radical Democrats treat abortion and guns as distinct, incommensurable issues, they really aren’t. Gun policy, if it is to pass Constitutional muster, must always be consistent with the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the language of the Second Amendment is to be understood as a codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, as with the other nine Amendments, is an affirmation of the value of human life, not its denial.
The Second Amendment does not entail, explicitly or implicitly, the idea of death, but, of life: the life of the Nation by discouraging tyranny; and the life of the individual, by discouraging threats to that innocent individual. Abortion entails, by definition, death: and death of the most innocent human being of all: an unborn child. There is no way around that conclusion. Any discussion of abortion as a policy choice and any discussion of a restriction on the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, as a policy choice, must start with the same standard. One must ask: does that policy choice promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or does that policy choice operate to impede if not altogether preclude life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The central theme of the Bill of Rights, perceived as an inseparable whole, speaks undeniably to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo attempt to undercut the Second Amendment by refusing to accept it for what it is: an unconditional, fundamental, unalienable, natural, and immutable right, a right bestowed on man by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator; and, as such, a right, as with the other Nine Amendments, that cannot be dismissed, modified, abrogated or ignored. In their refusal to accept the plain import and purport of the Bill Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Harris and Cuomo at once deny the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. Their denial, a casual and callous dismissal of the Second Amendment, operates, by implication, as a casual and callous denial of the Bill of Rights as an integrated whole.
Their dismissal of the Second Amendment, amounts to a refutation and dismissal of the entirety of the Bill of Rights as an integrated set of profound, fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights and liberties. Their dismissal of the sacredness of the Second Amendment Bill of Rights is blasphemy pure and simple.
Yet, it is wholly consistent with a temperament that could casually and callously dismiss a fundamental right, and, by logical implication, dismiss all fundamental rights embodied in our Constitution, that Harris and Cuomo would attempt, perfunctorily and arrogantly, to create another, substitute “right” out of whole cloth, namely a State-created “right to abortion,” even surmising that a woman’s right to destroy a living being within her is an independent right in and of itself or that it is somehow implicit in a general right to privacy. It isn’t; and it cannot be. A presumed right of Abortion does not exist in the Constitution. Further, abortion, logically, cannot be seen as implicit in any natural right codified in the Bill of Rights; nor can it be rationally perceived as some sort of new fundamental “right” compatible with the true rights codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For, abortion is altogether unnatural.
Abortion involves the absolute, annihilation of a human being. Absolute destruction of life is contained in and embodied in the very idea of it. It is an anathema. Abortion is the polar opposite of life. The practice of it amounts to the denial of the sanctity and inviolability of the human being. It is not a “right” at all. Abortion is an unspeakable act; an abomination. It cannot, legally or logically, be part and parcel of our Bill of Rights; nor can it be conceived as a right owing to anyone at all. And, any attempt to do so, any attempt to raise abortion to the level of a right—any kind of “right,” whether fundamental or secondary—is fraught with peril: a thing that threatens the preservation of our Nation as a Constitutional Republic; a thing that threatens preservation of our Constitution; a thing that threatens the continuation of our Judeo-Christian ethical heritage; and a thing that threatens the continued existence of the American citizenry, as a free and sovereign people.
IF YOU’RE GOING TO KILL A BABY, DO SO WITH A KNIFE, NOT A GUN!
HARRIS ON THE ISSUES OF GUN POSSESSION AND ABORTION
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has been an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment and a strong proponent of gun control for years. She has vigorously attacked civilian ownership and possession of modern sporting and self-defense semiautomatic rifles—what antigun zealots pejoratively and erroneously refer to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—and has called for an “assault weapons” ban. In fact, she has made pushing for an “assault weapons” ban one of her top two legislative priorities. At a town hall, hosted by CNN Anchor, Jake Tapper, on April 4, 2019, Senator Harris stated,
“ ‘There is no reason that in a society we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers,” Harris said during her CNN town hall with Jake Tapper. ‘Something like universal background checks. It makes perfect sense that you might want to know before someone can buy a weapon that can kill another human being. You might want to know, have they been convicted of a felony where they committed violence? That’s just reasonable.’”
Note Harris’ reference to “babies,” in the above cited passage. Kamala Harris argues for an outright civilian ban on semiautomatic weapons, ostensibly to protect babies and police officers, but without explaining how an outright ban on semiautomatic weapons would in fact protect babies and police officers. Apparently, Kamala Harris, and other Radical Left politicians believe this to be a self-evident truth. It isn’t, and the proposition that a ban on possession and ownership of semiautomatic weapons would protect the lives of babies, police officers, or anyone else is false, a pure fabrication, designed to appeal to the American public’s emotion, not to the American public’s reason.
There are, of course, obvious massive legal, logical, and ethical holes in Senator Harris’ claim—a bare unsupported assumption—that banning semiautomatic firearms will in and of itself curb the threat to the life of innocent people, most notably, that of infants. But, her fantastic, remarkable, absurd assertion isn’t the point to be addressed at length here. What is stunning is that Harris’ stance on abortion is, on logical grounds, alone, at loggerheads with her pretentious claim that it is the lives of babies she is most interested in protecting. She isn’t interested in protecting the lives of babies; not at all. Just take a look at her policy prescription on abortion. If implemented, her abortion policy wouldn’t protect babies. Instead, implementation of her abortion policy, nationwide, would result in the lawful massacre of hundreds of thousands and, conceivably, millions of unborn babies a year.
A baby’s death is no less certain whether by knife, ostensibly done lawfully, or by gun, unlawfully. But, Kamala Harris isn’t the least bit troubled by the glaring inconsistency in her policy positions. Since she intends to raise abortion to the level of a basic right, she must, of course, insist that abortion be all nice and legal. Harris seems to fail to recognize, though, the obvious contradiction in her policy stances. She asserts the need to constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms ostensibly to protect babies, and, yet, asserts, contemporaneously, an unconscionable desire to open the floodgates to wholesale slaughter of innocent babies, through the vehicle of abortion.
Whatever protestation Senator Harris might happen to make against the claim that her policy position on guns on the one hand and that of abortion on the other are inherently incompatible, the fact remains that, on logical grounds, alone, they are inconsistent. And, that being so, one cannot choose but must draw the irrefutable conclusion that it isn’t an innocent infant’s life that is an abiding concern for Kamala Harris at all. It’s just the mode employed for ending that life that is of pressing concern to her.
Harris isn’t troubled by infant deaths in the slightest. Her attempt at dissimulation is both plain and disconcerting and ineffective. Her blatant dishonesty serves to do nothing but undermine the efficacy of both policy stances.
Kamala Harris will take firearms away from the American citizenry ostensibly to protect the body politic and the life of babies—or, so she says. It is all just a makeweight, a pretext, to disarm law-abiding citizens, so that tyranny, in the form of a Left-wing Marxist/Socialist autocratic Government, that she envisions, isn’t threatened by a rebellious citizenry. And, Harris will allow abortion on demand, ostensibly to promote a State-created right to do so, dismissing out-of-hand, not merely deemphasizing, the fact that a human life is the regrettable price to be paid for implementation of that State-created right.
Is it just a callous disregard for the life of a human being that drives Harris’ abortion stance, or is it something even more perverse? With a new population consisting of millions of uneducated illegal aliens in the wings—aliens who have no comprehension of and little concern for our Constitution, and who have no comprehension of and even less concern for the concept of a Bill of Rights consisting of natural, fundamental, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who have no comprehension of and no concern at all for the concepts of personal autonomy and of personal responsibility—Kamala Harris and other Radical Left-wing elements may have seen, in the implementation of policy of on-demand abortion, a sure-fire recipe for encouraging abortion in the native population. Abortion as policy could and would operate, then, as an insidious, fiendish strategy through which Marxist/Socialist Collectivists might undercut the population of native born Americans, thereby changing the very structure of the American population through introduction of an entirely new population—one not reared on our history and heritage and on our core values; and one not reared on our system of laws; and one not looking for personal autonomy; and one that does not pride itself on integrity of Self. This new artificial population has one objective and need in mind: welfare. It is a population looking only for Governmental largess. And, it is that which has driven this alien population to demand entry to our Nation in the first place.
On May 28, 2019, The New York Times reported on Harris’ abortion plan, stating:
“Senator Kamala Harris of California unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require states and localities with a history of unconstitutionally restricting abortion rights to obtain federal approval before such laws can take effect.
Ms. Harris, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, called for what is known as a ‘preclearance requirement’ in the plan, released as numerous states have passed laws to sharply limit abortions.
‘When we look at a law like what’s happening in Alabama and they’re saying they’re going to sentence a doctor to 99 years, as a prosecutor, let me tell you, I got a real problem with that,’ Ms. Harris said on MSNBC on Tuesday night, referring to an Alabama law intended to ban most abortions in the state.
‘We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding women have agency, women have value, women have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies,’ she said.’”
“Going backward,” Oh really? And, where do we see concern for innocent human life in the above account? How many human beings will die as a result of implementation of Harris’ abortion policy prescription? Let’s juxtapose loss of young life by abortion with loss resulting from the misuse of guns. How many young children died by gunfire last year?
USAToday reports that 73 juveniles, aged 12 or less, died by gunfire in 2018, a figure that has remained essentially constant for the previous five years, according to the newspaper. Compare that figure to unwanted babies that were deliberately killed through abortion.
The website Abort73 reports that, in 2017, over 862,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. Abort 73 further reports that,
“According to the United Nations’ 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.”
Obviously killing babies is not an issue for Harris. It is how babies are killed that is her sole concern. So it is, that, on the subject of firearms, Harris talks about protecting the life of babies. She does so in order to make a faulty case for gun confiscation. And, on the subject of abortion, no discussion of babies ensues. How can it? The whole point of abortion is slaughter. So, Harris limits her remarks to a discussion on the purported right of a pregnant woman to kill a life inside her, without talking about that innocent life at all. That life lost, is, in total absence of discussion of the life lost, is reduced in status to something less than a human being. In fact the unborn child is perceived by Harris as a non-entity; nothing more than an unwanted body part.
IF YOU’RE GOING TO KILL A BABY, DO SO WITH A KNIFE, NOT A GUN!
ANDREW CUOMO ON THE ISSUES OF GUN POSSESSION AND ABORTION
Governor Andrew Cuomo’s policy prescriptions on guns and abortion are as equally inconsistent and as absurd as those policy prescriptions heralded by Senator Harris.
Andrew Cuomo, as with Kamala Harris, demonstrates an odd schizophrenia when it comes to the issue of life and death. He is so concerned about Radical Left policy objectives, he apparently fails to see and appreciate the inconsistency, inherent incoherence and abject irrationality of those policy prescriptions.
With passage of the horrific Reproductive Health Act of 2019, Governor Cuomo has shown a predilection for permitting the killing of babies. And, in that regard, it must be pointed out that New York has always embraced lenient abortion laws. But, the Reproductive Health Act goes far, far beyond previous law and policy. It is both deviously clever and fiendishly pernicious. It has little if anything to do with a woman’s reproductive health and everything to do with promoting death.
Similarly, the New York Safe Act has little if anything to do with gun safety and it has everything to do with restricting a law-abiding citizen’s ability to defend his or her life. The Safe Act bans a substantial number of firearms that are in common use and therefore fall within the scope of Second Amendment protection. New York has always had extraordinarily restrictive and pernicious gun laws. But, with enactment of the Safe Act, gun laws have become increasingly burdensome. Law-abiding New York gun owners are now plagued by a substantial number of confusing, oppressive gun regulations. They are even denied the right to bequeath their private property to next of kin. Apart from directly infringing the Second Amendment, the so-called “Safe” Act actually makes those individuals who wish to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, less, not more, safe, given the sheer number of new restrictive gun laws and abstruse, often inscrutable legal text.
A law-abiding gun owner who misinterprets the New York gun code sections—an easy thing to do—may lose one’s gun license, along with one’s firearms, and can face criminal penalties as well. Thus, one may easily lose the best means available to protect one’s life. How, then, does the “Safe Act” make a law-abiding gun owner safe? Since enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo has constrained exercise of the Second Amendment even further, demonstrating, as Cuomo has acknowledged, that the NY Safe Act was never meant to be an end in itself but merely a work in progress. Cuomo won’t be satisfied until every law-abiding American citizen residing in New York is disarmed. And still he would not be done. His wish is to make the New York Safe Act the model for Congressional legislation, affecting the entire Nation. One must ask: is the Safe Act a prescription for preserving life or merely a pretext for disarming the public? When one looks at Cuomo’s stance on abortion side-by-side with his stance on civilian ownership and possession of firearms it is clear that Cuomo isn’t concerned with promoting public safety and protecting life at all.
Six years after signing into law his signature antigun measure, the New York Safe Act of 2013, on January 15, 2013, Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act into law on January 22, 2019. The name given to New York’s abortion law is as misleading and deceptive as the name given to New York’s antigun legislation. Just as the New York Safe Act has little if anything to do with promoting public safety, New York’s Reproductive Health Act has little if anything to do with promoting a woman’s reproductive health and well-being.
The very notion of promoting “reproductive health and well-being” as the rationale for enactment of the Reproductive Health Act is a “blind.” It is a pretext; and an obvious pretext at that. Ending a human life has nothing to do with promoting a woman’s reproductive health and well-being; and ending a human life certainly has nothing to do with promoting the reproductive health and well-being of the life slaughtered. Aborting a baby doesn’t produce life, it ends it. Ask yourself: what does ending life have to do with propagating life? Answer: nothing. New York’s Reproductive Health Act sanctions murder. That is all the Act does; and on that score, it works very, very well.
Although ostensibly created to be consistent with the standard established in the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, the Reproductive Health Act isn’t consistent with the Supreme Court ruling at all, as the Supreme Court ruling does not sanction abortion after the second trimester of pregnancy and the New York abortion law does. The New York abortion law lawfully permits abortion after the second trimester of pregnancy. The liberal website, Politfact, citing the Sponsor of of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, maintains that the Act is quite similar to the original abortion laws of New York:
“Previously, women in New York could only get abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if their lives were threatened,’ according to Justin Flagg, a spokesman for [the Act’s Sponsor, State Senator Liz] Krueger.
Under the new law, he said, women can also get an abortion after 24 weeks if their health is threatened or the fetus isn’t viable.
Jen Villavicencio, an ob-gyn in the Midwest who provides abortions, said in a statement to PolitiFact that the post is ‘inaccurate.’
‘Abortions are not performed at 40 weeks on healthy, viable pregnancies,’ she said. ‘Overwhelmingly, abortions that occur at this point in pregnancy are pregnancies where lethal fetal anomalies have been diagnosed.’ ”
The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the legal import of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019. See our March 29, 2019 article.
The statement by Jen Villavicencio is deceptive.
Flushing out the language of the entire Act, not just portions of it, one sees a deliberate inconsistency which, on analysis, makes abundantly clear that, contrary to the arguments of naysayers–those people who support on-demand abortion–who argue disingenuously (as if they gave a damn) that the New York Reproductive Health Act only permits on-demand, at-will abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, ostensibly consistent, then, with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. That is blatantly false, and Cuomo and the drafters of New York’s abortion Act, must know that to be false. With passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a pregnant woman can obtain an abortion on-demand at any point in time, whether in the first, second, or third trimester of pregnancy–indeed up to the very moment of birth, and, conceivably, even at the very point of live birth. How do we know this to be true? The language of the Act itself is its own damning indictment against itself.
Prior to enactment of the New York’s Reproductive Health Act, late term abortion was, except in rare circumstances, actionable as a very serious crime: manslaughter. But, under the new law that Cuomo has aggressively pushed for, and which a compliant State Government in Albany, has enacted, and which Cuomo, with great flourish and fanfare signed, into law, abortion no longer exists as a crime in New York, under any circumstances. This fact is critical to an understanding of just how far removed New York’s new abortion Act, deceptively named the Reproductive Health Act, is from New York’s original abortion laws. Consider: if the Reproductive Health Act simply allowed for lawful abortion where a fetus isn’t viable, as a new condition, allowing for lawful abortion, apart from consideration of the life of the mother, alone, then a change to the original law need only account for that one new condition. It doesn’t.
The Reproductive Health Act, goes far beyond the simple addition of a new condition for lawfully terminating a pregnancy during the third trimester. The Reproductive Health Act is an extensive rewrite of abortion in New York, impacting several sections of the Consolidated laws of New York. So, the Governor and those who drafted the Reproductive Health Act must have had other factors in mind when drafting New York’s new abortion Act. And, a close reading of the Act—all of it and as actually written–makes abundantly clear just how far-reaching the Reproductive Health Act is. The Act goes far beyond anything contemplated in previous New York abortion law.
The one critical change is that the crime of abortion has literally been stricken from the Consolidated laws of New York. What does that mean, then? What is the effect of striking ‘abortion’ from the Penal Code of the Consolidated laws of New York? We explain.
Since abortion is no longer a crime in New York, a viable human being can be legally aborted up to the very moment of birth. If there is no punishment attached to an act, there is no purported wrongdoing. So, while one may frown on abortion in the absence of a stated condition for it, the absence of any associated penalty for abortion after the third trimester of pregnancy not predicated on a stated condition ostensibly allowing for lawful abortion is, nonetheless, lawful. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act creates the illusion that only two conditions exist, after the second trimester, that permit lawful abortion in New York: the life of the mother and the viability of the baby. If the life of the mother is at stake or if the baby is not viable, then, according to one section of the Act, the life of the baby may be lawfully terminated. That is true enough, and that is what those who support abortion on demand argue. But, they are wrong; or, more likely, they know what the truth is, and they simply wish to deceive the public. That makes them cunning.
For, suppose, after the third trimester the mother wishes to abort her baby notwithstanding that her life would not be in jeopardy if the pregnancy is allowed to continue or notwithstanding that the baby isn’t viable. May she still lawfully have an abortion? The unequivocal answer is, “yes.” Why is that the case? For this reason: Again, if there is no penalty attached to an act, there is no crime.
Since the very word, ‘abortion,’ has been stricken from the New York Penal Code and since coroners in New York are not permitted to investigate an act of abortion–any act of abortion conducted in New York, under any circumstance–it logically follows that a pregnant woman can lawfully abort a baby at any point in time, up to the very moment of live birth. There is, then, no crime of abortion in New York; not any longer, at any rate. This uncomfortable, indeed disturbing, fact makes New York one of only a few States, if there exists any other at all, that legally permits at-will abortion, up to the very moment of birth. Thus, contrary to pro-abortion accounts and arguments presented, the Reproductive Health Act goes far beyond anything contemplated in Roe v. Wade.
The Reproductive Health Act operates, then, in a different manner than what Roe v. Wade discusses and permits. The Reproductive Act is, then, a far cry from the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court that has placed specific restrictions on late-term abortion. New York’s Reproductive Health Act is therefore, on its face, unconstitutional. But, as with unconstitutional gun laws, unless a party with proper, legal standing challenges an unconstitutional law in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and unless, after trial, the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the law will stand and the law will be enforced. And, at the moment, the Reproductive Health Act does stand, like the New York Safe Act, as valid law of New York, even though, both laws are unconstitutional, as they are both inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and they are, as well, ethically unconscionable law. The New York Safe Act and the New York Health Reproductive Act are representative of the kinds of policy prescriptions Americans can expect from Radical Left and New Progressive Left politicians. These Left-wing extremists, supportive of the tenets of Collectivism, do not have the best interests of this Nation and of its citizenry at heart. They mean to destroy our Constitutional Republic, and to erase the Bill of Rights. They fear an armed citizenry and they reject the notions of individual autonomy, integrity of Self, and the inherent sovereignty of the American people over that of Government. The idea they seek to engender through on-demand, at-will abortion isn’t meant to empower women, their assertions to the contrary. It is meant to enslave women by denying to women that which is and ought to be most sacred: the life they bear within them. Apart from destroying the most innocent of life, the practice of abortion is an apt metaphor for the contempt in which these Dead Souls of the Radical Left and the so-called New Progressive Left hold all people as they seek to exert maximum control over the thoughts and behavior of every American.
What can Americans expect will occur from enactment of the Reproductive Health Act in New York, this year? We can expect that New York will become the murder capital of the world, as women from all over the Country and from other Countries as well will flock to New York to destroy their child, and will not be hampered, as women will be able to lawfully abort their baby, for any reason or for no reason at all, and may do so at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of live birth. There is nothing in New York law, any longer, to prevent abortion. All previous stumbling blocks have been removed. The number of abortions that had been falling around the Country in the last few years can now be expected to increase once again, and to increase rapidly and exponentially; and we have Andrew Cuomo and the Reproductive Act of New York, that he signed into law with a flourish, to thank for that.
Andrew Cuomo should be absolutely ashamed of himself, pushing for enactment of and then signing the Reproductive Health Act into law. Moreover, Cuomo’s stance on abortion is not only morally repugnant, it is inconsistent with his own religious upbringing. Cuomo is a Roman Catholic, and still claims to be a practicing Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism has a very clear stricture when it comes to the matter of abortion. The Catholic Church categorically condemns abortion and calls it out for what it is: the murder of an innocent human being.
Cuomo, though doesn’t seem to be bothered with any of this. He sees no inconsistency in his having signed infanticide into law as Governor of New York, and remaining, in his own eyes at least, a follower of Roman Catholicism.
As he suffers to explain it, Cuomo sees his duties as Governor as distinct from those as a Roman Catholic. Cuomo says that, as Governor, his job requires him to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold the stricture of the Catholic Church. In his twisted, distorted logic, as cited in the Catholic website, Patheos, Cuomo asserts:
“Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”
This isn’t sound logic; it is sophistry. Cuomo’s reference to both the New York State Constitution and the anti-establishment of religion clause inthe First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, ostensibly to support infanticide and any late-term at-will abortion of an innocent human life, does not support enactment of the Reproductive Health Act at all. His argument in support of the Act is patently absurd.
While Pope Francis has handled enactment of New York’s Reproductive Health Act obliquely, gingerly, and obviously reluctantly, New York’s, Cardinal Timothy Dolan has exhibited no such restraint, commenting directly and forcefully against the abortion Act and took Cuomo’s lackadaisical, dismissive attitude toward abortion to task, as the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out in a previous article, posted on the website on May 19, 2019.
Apart from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of abortion, the U.S. Constitution, and New York’s own Constitution, too, neither condones nor permits the murder of innocent human beings. Cuomo apparently knows this, and that is why he has not stopped at merely signing the Reproductive Health Act into law, horrible as that Act is—making late-term at-will abortion, lawful, in New York.
Apparently realizing that the Act will be challenged and attempting to prevent a successful Court challenge, Cuomo has proposed an Amendment to the New York Constitution, that effectively raises infanticide to the level of a fundamental right in New York!
Cuomo exclaims with customary, disingenuous exuberance and bravado on the Governor’s website:
“ ‘As Washington seeks to limit women’s rights, we seek to protect them, and as they threaten reproductive rights, I propose a constitutional amendment to write Roe v. Wade into the New York State Constitution to prevent any attack on the right to choose,’ Governor Cuomo said. ‘We will not allow the progress of the women’s movement to be stopped, and we must seize this opportunity to bring the state and the nation forward and stand up for women’s health. Make no mistake, we will always protect the right to choose in New York.’”
How does Governor Cuomo seek to protect “women’s rights?” He does so by offering up as sacrifice, what ought to be received as the Divine Creator’s Greatest gift to human beings: a being created in his own image. Again, as with Senator Kamala Harris, no mention is made of the destruction of human life. With much fanfare, though, Cuomo and Harris proselytize about women’s rights, whatever Cuomo and Harris claim those rights to be. But, any discussion of babies is noticeably, painfully absent, tucked completely away from view.
Cuomo thinks that a constitutional amendment, inserting the Court’s opinion into the State Constitution will legally protect and sanctify the Reproductive Health Act. It will do no such thing. Since the language of the Reproductive Health Act, when taken as a whole, is at odds with high Court law, insertion of the Roe v. Wade into the State Constitution would more likely serve to nullify the Act, not strengthen and preserve it. So have at it, Governor Cuomo!
What is perceived with the liberalization of abortion, albeit with decidedly less fanfare, and more pain, for anyone who wishes to see it, is human sacrifice raised to the level of official edict. How is this different from human sacrifice performed by pagan religions of centuries past! We are beginning to see the Radical Left’s model for Liberal Democracy; for our new Age of Enlightenment; for a New World Order!
Cuomo, ever the politician, contorts and distorts both U.S. law and the Judeo-Christian Ethic in a naked attempt to make the U.S. Constitution and Western morality and ethics cohere with his own warped view of both—one consistent with the Marxist-Collectivist ideology. But that ideology is absolutely inconsistent with the import and purport of our Nation’s Constitution and that ideology is absolutely anathema to the Judeo-Christian ethical foundation of our Nation. Cuomo doesn’t care and Harris doesn’t care. They are both on an Unholy Crusade; Anti-Christs, ready to remake the World in their own ungodly image!
It is plain to see that Governor Cuomo and Senator Harris have not been and will not ever be constrained by law or logic or morality or even by simple common human decency. Arrogant and sanctimonious to the extreme, obsessed with smug self-aggrandizement, avidly supported by a seditious Press, by Billionaire Globalists, and by Hollywood celebrities, emboldened by a surge of radical Leftist social and political sentiment plaguing our Nation, obstreperous and defiant to criticism, flagrantly violating our Constitution and system of laws, violating all compunctions of custom, these Radical Left political animals are beyond all redemption.
Cuomo and Harris will gladly sell their soul to the Devil for personal gain, and, by all accounts, with all that we have to date seen, they have already done so. Unfortunately, with the power they wield, as recognized through their words and deeds, they may very well have the ability to take the Nation and its citizenry down to perdition with them.
Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.