For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

For Once, the Sexual Revolutionaries Aren’t Wrong

A fresh Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade will certainly affect the law on same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

“The Sexual Revolutionaries fretting over gay marriage and contraception are not wrong,” said Ruth Institute President Dr Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD.

“Once the Court stops propping up the Sexual Revolution with so-called rights invented out of thin air, a lot of ‘settled issues’ are up for grabs.”

“Although in his draft of a Roe decision, Justice Samuel Alito said it would not impact other so-called rights, like gay marriage, logic would suggest otherwise,” Morse observed.
Roe v. Wade was decided over 49 years ago,” Morse noted.

“But Obergefell v. Hodges — which mandated homosexual marriage nationwide — was only decided in 2015. Doesn’t that make Obergefell a less important precedent?”

Shaky Basis

“The Supreme Court found rights in the Constitution that simply aren’t there. There’s no right to privacy, which the Court claimed to find in the First Amendment. This imaginary right to privacy was the foundation for Griswold and Eisenstadt as well as Roe. And there is no right to gay marriage in the 14th Amendment,” Morse explained.

“Part of the original Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was enacted to protect freedom of speech and religion. It says nothing about privacy, let alone abortion.”

“The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to prevent Southern states from abridging the rights of ex-slaves. Only justices bent on legislating from the bench could interpret that as requiring same-sex marriage nationwide,” Morse charged.
“The Court frequently changes its mind about divisive topics,” Morse said.

“In the 1858 Dredd Scott decision, it said slaves are property. In 1896, it said ‘separate but equal’ in education was constitutional. In 1954, it said it was not.”

Losing Ground

“There is one important difference between Roe and Obergefell though,” Morse continued.

Roe galvanised the pro-life community and created a vibrant authentically grassroots nationwide movement. After Obergefell, proponents of marriage threw up their hands and said, ‘Oh, well, we tried,’ and moved on to other issues. The right-to-life movement never gave up and has had many successes.”

“We are fighting transgenderism today, precisely because we lost and gave up on marriage in 2015. Obergefell de-gendered marriage, which led to removing gendered words from legal documents. ‘Husband’ and ‘wife,’ were replaced with ‘spouse’ or ‘partner.’ ‘Mother’ and ‘father’ became androgynous ‘parents.’ No wonder we’re fighting transgenderism in schools.”

“If the Supreme Court does recognise a right to life, it gives hope to those of us who never gave up on man-woman marriage.”

The Ruth Institute’s upcoming 5th Annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution June 24-25 in Lake Charles, LA, will feature a keynote speech by Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America. There will be multiple sessions on gender ideology, and Morse will present: “Defending Traditional Christian Sexual Ethics like a Pro.”

Originally published at The Ruth Institute. Photo by Gotta Be Worth It.

Thank the Source

Restored Republic via a GCR as of May 13, 2022

Restored Republic via a GCR as of May 13, 2022

Decide for yourself what to make of this information.

Restored Republic Published May 13, 2022

This video is reposted from the website :
Thanks for your support. The content we do is quite sensitive, so it is impossible to monetize the social media platforms. Your support is what drives us to continue producing content. Thank you very much!
Restored Republic Donate Paypal :
Show Your Support for Trump’s Effort to Reclaim the White House in 2024 with this Limited-Edition Gold-Colored “The Revenge Tour” Coin Today!
Buy & sell Crypto in minutes
Join the world’s largest crypto exchange Register now :

2. FREE Trump 2024 ‘The Revenge Tour’ Gold Coin :

3.President Donald J. Trump Collectible Pocket Watch :

4.Classic Red Trump ‘Make America Great Again’ Hat :

5.Trump 2024 Campaign’Take America Back’ Flag :

6. Commemorative “Trump Bucks” Imitation Gold Bill :

7. Free USA Flag :
Donate Paypal Now:
Twitter :
Rumble :
Bitchute :
Website :
Join TELEGRAM Join TELEGRAM if you LOVE President Trump!
We will update the video link on telegram soon
Thank you to all my loyal fans i love each and everyone one of you Please **like and subscribe**

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Virginia’s GOP Leaders Are Refusing To Enforce The Law Against Leftists Harassing SCOTUS Justices

Virginia’s GOP Leaders Are Refusing To Enforce The Law Against Leftists Harassing SCOTUS Justices

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares are refusing to enforce state law against leftist protesters who have been demonstrating outside the homes of several U.S. Supreme Court justices in the Commonwealth.

Following the leak of a draft majority opinion from the high court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion protesters have been showing up at the homes of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices in recent weeks in an attempt to intimidate members of the court into upholding the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

On Wednesday, several demonstrators who were dressed up as characters from “The Handmaid’s Tale” marched outside the Virginia home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with one participant saying that “the fact that [Barrett is] an adoptive mother is influencing her inability to see what it’s like to carry a pregnancy to term,” despite the justice having birthed five biological children.

Pro-abortion leftists also surrounded the Virginia residence of Justice Samuel Alito on Monday, as well as the Maryland homes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts over the past weekend.

In response to the intimidation tactics, Youngkin, along with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in which the Republican governors called upon the Department of Justice to prosecute demonstrators for violating federal law.

“While we are willing to assist in the event the need for increased security measures becomes imminent, federal law enforcement entities must take the lead and provide sustained resources to protect the Justices and ensure these residential areas are secure in the weeks and months ahead,” the letter reads. “Today, we together ask that the Department of Justice through the respective United States Attorneys’ offices provide appropriate resources to safeguard the Justices and enforce the law as it is written.”

In the letter, Youngkin and Hogan cite 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which explicitly states that “[w]hoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

In addition, Youngkin has also requested that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors order the county’s police department to “establish an expanded security perimeter” around the justices’ homes.

While such rhetoric may seem meaningful, Youngkin, along with Miyares, is simultaneously refusing to enforce Virginia state law that would hold demonstrators accountable for their illegal actions. As detailed in § 18.2-419 of the Virginia Code, “Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor,” which constitutes as “a fine of not more than $500.”

When asked if Miyares intends to pursue charges against violators under the statute, a representative for the attorney general told The Federalist that “[u]nder Virginia law, local Commonwealth’s Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting violations of [the] statute.”

“Attorney General Miyares urges every Commonwealth’s Attorney to put their personal politics aside and enforce the law,” said spokeswoman Victoria LaCivita.

Throughout the 2021 Virginia election cycle and beyond, Miyares has routinely cast himself as a “law and order” figure willing to be tough on crime. In a December op-ed for the Washington Examiner, for instance, Miyares pledged that if Virginians’ local prosecutor wouldn’t enforce the law, he would.

“When an elected commonwealth’s attorney publicly states that he will not prosecute a crime, citizens should have a backup plan to ensure that victims get their day in court,” he wrote.

LaCivita did not respond to The Federalist’s follow-up inquiry as to whether Miyares would take legal action if the local Commonwealth’s Attorney refuses to hold violators of the statute accountable.

When similarly pressed on the lack of action from Youngkin on enforcement of § 18.2-419, Youngkin told The Federalist that the statute is “barely more punitive than a parking ticket.”

“The federal statute is absolutely clear that parading and picketing in order to influence a justice is punishable with up to a year in prison,” he said in reference to 18 U.S. Code § 1507. “This is a time where local law enforcement, state law enforcement, and federal law enforcement need to collaborate and come together in order to make sure that we are upholding the law and keeping people safe.”

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood


5 Subconscious Lies of Our Therapeutic Age that Can Deceive Christians

5 Subconscious Lies of Our Therapeutic Age that Can Deceive Christians

As we shed our traditional Judaeo-Christian values, our worldview has radically changed, including our expectations of life, of others, and what we base our identity upon. Feelings trump reason and suffering is unacceptable.

Over 200 years ago, a revolution was launched across the West.

Or rather, revolutions. Western societies began to move away from Christianity. They moved slowly at first — like a crawling baby. But as that baby grew, it became less and less Christian, shaking off its religious beliefs.

Fast forward to 2022, and this child (to continue the metaphor) has a radically different view of reality and humanity than 200 years ago.

We’re now a society where our feelings are critical to our existence. Or, in the words of sociologist Philip Rieff, we live in the ‘therapeutic age’: we’re driven and defined by our feelings in ways utterly foreign to our ancestors. And this has spawned all sorts of beliefs that shape us and our view of the world.

What’s more, these beliefs are mostly subconscious:

We don’t consciously choose to accept them. Instead, we ‘catch’ them as we swim in the sea of Western culture. Whether through the media we consume (e.g. Disney, Hollywood), our workplaces, social media, or friends.

And because these beliefs are unbiblical, they can wreak havoc on people’s lives. 

Here are 5 of those beliefs:

1) Our Feelings Determine Who We Are

This belief is the bedrock of our therapeutic feeling-based age.

You see it everywhere, from Disney (‘just follow your heart’) to the transgender movement (your internal feelings about gender trump your physical biology). Genuine ‘authenticity’ now means living out your inner feelings, no matter what they are (and woe to anyone who tells you otherwise). [1]

But when anyone — including Christians — adopts this belief, it shapes us in strange and ungodly ways:

We can let our feelings trump our given identity in Christ. We can let our emotions drive our moral decision-making. And we can judge our Church not on its faithful teaching and living, but on how it serves our felt needs.

2) True Freedom Means Defining Your Own Existence

If our feelings determine our identity, then true freedom means society giving us space to express that identity.

This view of freedom is a bedrock belief that sustains the abortion rights movement across the West. As the US Supreme Court wrote in a ruling about abortion rights:

‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State.’ [2]

With freedom thus redefined, oppression is also redefined: oppression now includes anything — any belief, any law — that prevents people from expressing their own view of existence (the Biblical sexual ethic, anyone?). And so, Christians have moved from being the ‘moral guys’ to being the ‘bad guys’.

While Christians feel this pressure externally, from society, it’s also a belief that shapes us internally:

We’re less willing to submit ourselves to others, like church leaders and religious institutions. We’re less likely to see submission as good. We don’t want others telling us what to do.

And if we’re in positions of leadership, we’re less likely to want to enforce rules like church discipline, as it feels a little unfair.

3) Always Trust Your Feelings

Because feelings are essential to who we are, they now hold authority like never before.

If something or someone makes you uncomfortable, then the problem is always the other person and never your feelings. Your interpretation of reality (which leads to those feelings) is always right because we are our feelings.

We see this in the rise of cancel culture, where any person or belief that causes people to feel offended is attacked and shut down. There’s little engagement or understanding with what the other person might mean or why they might hold to that view — let alone whether that view is true or not.

4) We’re Meant to Have Good Feelings, So Avoid Anything That Makes You Feel Bad

The aim of life in a therapeutic age has moved from having good character to having good feelings.

Feeling good becomes a moral duty: the big question we ask ourselves is no longer ‘what’s the right thing to do?’, but rather ‘how will it make me feel?’ And so, as a culture, we avoid anything that makes us feel bad:

  • We avoid the difficult person at Church because they don’t make us feel good.

  • We avoid having those hard but important conversations because they make us feel uncomfortable.

  • And we avoid conflict like it’s an out-of-fashion pair of jeans.

  • We use people and things to help us feel good: life becomes increasingly self-centred.

Of course, this has all sorts of problems because constantly feeling good is an unrealistic goal. We’ll regularly feel frustrated. Yes, we might feel good for a while — when we get that new phone, friend, or partner. But it never lasts.

More perniciously, life lived for self-centred feelings and avoidance of difficulty can leave a trail of damaged relationships.

(Ask almost any celebrity.)

5) Suffering Serves No Good Purpose

If life is all about feeling good, then suffering is all bad: it serves no purpose.

Suffering gets in the way of my feeling good. And I’ll do anything to avoid it. There’s no ‘higher purpose’ to my suffering.

But we can’t avoid suffering in a fallen world.

It’s part of our human condition (no matter how much we try to avoid it). Adopting a therapeutic view of suffering leads to anger and even despair when suffering hits us. We’ll feel discombobulated and fearful, worrying about the next bout of suffering that might come our way.

These 5 beliefs, these lies, are deeply embedded in Western Culture. But in an upcoming post, we’ll explore how we can respond to each of them in a way that frees us from their grip.


[1] It’s worth mentioning there are still culturally accepted limits to what desires people can live out: e.g. pedophilia is still unacceptable.

[2] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). Quoted in Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self – Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020), 303.


Originally published at Photo by Yan Krukov.

Thank the Source

Nolte: AG Merrick Garland Refuses to Enforce Laws Protecting SCOTUS

Nolte: AG Merrick Garland Refuses to Enforce Laws Protecting SCOTUS

The pro-baby-slaughtering protests, chanting, and screaming outside the homes of six Supreme Court justices violate federal law, and Joe Biden’s attorney general refuses to enforce that law.

Here it is in black and white: 18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The law is strikingly clear. It is a crime to protest “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge” with “the intent of influencing any judge.”

And yet, even though this is the law, hundreds of pro-abortion loons are flagrantly violating this law by doing exactly that: protesting outside the residences of six justices in the hopes of persuading them to rule a certain way.

Now, it is a perfectly valid position to oppose this law, to see it as a violation of the First Amendment, to believe it is unconstitutional. As long as the protests are peaceful, why should We the People be restricted in our protests? It’s also possible that the ban on protesting near courthouses is unconstitutional, but that the ban on protesting near someone’s house in a residential neighborhood is constitutional. The Supreme Court has upheld many restrictions on the time, place, or manner of speech.

What’s more, what is wrong with trying to influence a judge’s ruling?

But that’s not the point here…

The point is that the law is the law is the law, and it is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s sworn duty to uphold federal law, and he is not doing that. Why? Well, does anyone doubt that Garland and the lawless White House that appointed him would like nothing more than to see the endless and demonic slaughter of innocent, unborn children continue?

Garland is pro-abortion. That’s why he’s not enforcing the law. This has nothing to do with principle. If it were pro-life protesters out there, you can bet Garland would have already rounded them up and thrown away the key.

Once again, it is plain to see that in this country, there is one law for people on the left and another for people on the right.

Nevertheless, according to the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws. The executive branch, which Garland is part of, enforces that law. Period. End of story. By not enforcing the law, Garland is violating his constitutional oath. It’s not up to him to decide which laws he will and won’t enforce. He is also setting a terrible precedent by allowing this brazen lawbreaking to continue. What’s to stop future attorneys general from doing the same?

It comes down to this… If Garland disagrees with a law, the most effective way to see that law overturned is to enforce it. Arrests could result in court challenges that kill the law.

Some people blame Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) for not enforcing the law. Well, unless the feds deputize the local police force, a state governor cannot enforce federal law. That’s up to federal law enforcement, which Merrick Garland oversees.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.


Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Calls For Violent Insurrection Against SCOTUS

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot encouraged violence on Monday in a tweet asserting the U.S. Supreme Court’s leaked opinion draft signaling the downfall of Roe v. Wade means the justices will come for the“LGBTQ+ community” next.

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms,” she wrote on Twitter. “We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

The tweets came after a weekend of attacks on churches and pro-life centers and in the midst of coordinated mobs of Democrat activists descending upon the homes of conservative justices and their families. Due to the increase in calls for violence, security — including high-grade and unscalable fencing — has been erected around the besieged Supreme Court. The Senate also voted Monday on a bill to increase protection for Supreme Court justices and their families who have been threatened.

Lightfoot is one of many Democrats to issue such threats. In 2020, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and personally threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh if they didn’t issue opinions aligning with his views on abortion.

The Supreme Court has not signaled any desire to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges — and the Dobbs v. Jackson draft opinion specifically noted it and other key cases deal with fundamentally different issues than abortion — yet Lightfoot is not alone in her fearmongering about it. Since the Dobbs draft opinion was leaked, Lightfoot’s Democrat allies who feel threatened by the probable end of Roe, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ladies on “The View,” and the corporate media, have not only lied about the court’s intentions but have also called for action against the justices, the physical Supreme Court, and the American political system as a whole.

Even President Joe Biden hinted that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision could threaten “a whole range of rights.”

In addition to spreading blatant disinformation with the goal of undermining SCOTUS, Lightfoot also explicitly called for political violence against U.S. institutions, something she previously denounced.

Lightfoot was one of the many Democrats who blamed former President Donald Trump for the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 202, and claimed he “incited this violence” with his words.

“I am in disbelief with what is unfolding in D.C. right now,” Lightfoot tweeted at the time. “President Trump and his enablers incited this violence. Shame on every elected official in Congress and elsewhere who fomented this anti-democratic insurrection by extremists. This is not democracy. This is a disgrace.”

Twitter banned Trump for language it claimed posed a “risk of further incitement of violence,” but Lightfoot’s Supreme Court tweet that explicitly demands a “call to arms” and a “fight” remains untouched by the Big Tech censors. Democrats in Congress also tried to impeach Trump for telling his supporters to “fight like hell,” but so far, Lightfoot’s incendiary tweet remains uncondemned by her own party.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Overturning Roe Would Be A Triumph That Can Bring America Back To Life

Overturning Roe Would Be A Triumph That Can Bring America Back To Life

Just as slavery and its lingering effects scarred America for centuries, the national sin of Roe v. Wade has weighed our nation down with the shame and devastation of legalized mass murder. Just as slavery deeply challenged the patriotism of those scarred by that evil regime in America, so has the unconstitutional and morally abhorrent abortion regime in America.

Also just as slavery plainly contradicted the philosophy and law of the American founders — who wrote “all men are created equal, and… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, [and] among these are Life” — so does Roe v. Wade, which even leftist “scholars” agree is a garbage decision. Just as slavery created a constitutional crisis that existentially threatened America, so did Roe v. Wade.

The attention on the protesters using violence and intimidation to retain a clearly unconstitutional and clearly immoral court diktat has obscured that if the Supreme Court does not overturn Roe, its legitimacy is finished. At that point, after decades of fruitlessly investing in keeping as many courts as possible closer to constitutionalism, the right will fully agree with the left that the Supreme Court is an illegitimate, utterly politicized institution, as I explained on EWTN last week. That will finish off what was left of the American republic and mark its complete conversion into something entirely different.

For it is highly politicized decisions like Roe, its companion Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and others such as those sanctioning the New Deal starting with West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, that have undermined the court’s legitimacy. The court maintains legitimacy precisely in doing its job of applying the law faithfully, instead of taking politics into consideration. Just as overturning Plessy v. Ferguson restored the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, so would the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Besides keeping the Founders’ America alive for “one more season of restraint,” fixing warped Roe v. Wade jurisprudence would also enliven the country, not just literally but also figuratively. It would breathe new life into an America that all of us should be able to admit has been on life support for some time.

Those of us who have been willing to admit what abortion is — the taking of a human life — have for decades been weighed down with the knowledge our own country has been allowing this on a mass scale, and even demanding we participate in and celebrate it. Such a regime not only delegitimizes itself but drains its own lifeblood.

The potential overturn of Roe v. Wade is a massive opportunity to overturn a horrifying evil, and therefore to do great good. The opportunity to do great good is a strong and previously unavailable motivator. It would be a huge energizer for those who have resisted the usurping regime’s massive efforts to get us to stop seeing and talking about what we have seen that regime do to our nation. It would be the fall of a great spiritual Berlin Wall inside our nation.

It would allow us to finally stop talking about “norms” and start talking about whether those norms nourish or destroy life. We could stop talking about marginal tax rates and about whose duty it is, exactly, to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. In short, we can start making the necessary bold moves to re-seed and water a culture of life. Without Roe, we can start from the beginning and move holistically, from the bottom up instead of merely tinkering around the corners of an entirely corrupt edifice.

That’s the most needed action in this moment, as the political and immoral left has become very clear about its frightening degradation into a death cult. Overturning Roe would show that major, enduring cultural victories are still possible, and that all of the nation’s institutions don’t belong to the left. Perhaps that’s why this poll showed a move to the right after people heard about the leaked majority opinion to overturn Roe.

An outpouring of creative social entrepreneurship and policy could be in the offing as states finally have the opportunity to make good on their voters’ belief that the unborn are people deserving of the best care a civilization can offer. By returning this existential policy to the people again, it could allow them to get involved in more immediate, tangible, and fruitful ways than demonstrating in the streets or on Twitter.

People who want to save lives could be more able to adopt a baby now that abortion isn’t killing nearly all of the potential adoptees, or help sponsor local children living with their own needy families like many churches do for children in faraway nations. It would be even less tenable to ban Christians from helping with foster care and adoption when the need for connecting children with parents increases through refusing to kill inconvenient children.

We’re so used to losing, who knows what the biggest win in generations could do to energize the American majority that remains committed to families and the rule of the real Constitution, not the murderous “living” one. But I do know that nothing is so energizing and refreshing as a baby. There’s nothing more unifying, more animating, and more lively. A baby is a life, and a baby makes a life. This is true both for us as individuals and for us as a collective.

Children are a reason to get up in the morning, to make a morning at all. Discharging our responsibilities to children is the way to make it “Morning in America” again, both in our homes and in our civic life. Caring for them is the best way forward. It is the only way.

Without children, a civilization dies, both spiritually and literally. We are on the cusp of continuing to lose our babies, but there’s a chance we can get them back. And we need to, for our nation’s life is inextricable from theirs.

As every good parent learns, having a child is the way to become human again. Being human means becoming the kind of person who will sacrifice himself to benefit another. A society without enough of such persons is soon not a society at all. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, can either mean life or death not only for the unborn, but also for their nation. We must all hope, pray, and prepare.


MSNBC Guest Fantasizes About Sleeping With SCOTUS Betrayer, ‘Joyfully’ Aborting Baby

MSNBC Guest Fantasizes About Sleeping With SCOTUS Betrayer, ‘Joyfully’ Aborting Baby
Ayman, Walsh, Kumar, and Kilmartin on MSNBC

Image CreditGrabien screengrab

Comedian Laurie Kilmartin appeared on MSNBC over the weekend to fantasize about having sex with the person who leaked the Supreme Court’s draft Dobbs v. Jackson opinion, which could overturn Roe v. Wade, then “joyfully” aborting the baby out of spite if it turned out the leaker was a conservative.

“Here’s my feeling about the leaker. I would like to find out who the leaker is, so I could make sweet love to that person, because that person is a hero to me. Okay?” she said on MSNBC’s “Ayman,” hosted by Ayman Mohyeldin.

“And if the leaker — a lot of people are saying it could be a conservative — if the leaker is a Republican, and if I get pregnant during our lovemaking, I will joyfully abort our fetus, and let them know,” she continued.

Mohyeldin cracked up laughing and nodded as she spoke, responding “yeah” after she called the leaker a hero. After Kilmartin finished her bizarre remarks, instead of condemning them or even looking horrified, Mohyeldin lowered his head in more apparent laughter, before simply calling the tirade “a little off-topic” with a smile still plastered on his face.

Also on the panel were Joan Walsh, a correspondent for The Nation and a former CNN and MSNBC analyst, and Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO of Voto Latino and an MSNBC contributor. Both smiled awkwardly at Kilmartin’s words.

Walsh piped up, not to condemn Kilmartin’s glorification of violence, but to suggest the leaker might be Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, and to claim that Mrs. Thomas “helped plan the insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021. (Spoiler: she did no such thing.)

“Justice Thomas is still ruling on those questions. Why is that okay but we’re obsessed with leakers?” she asked, using a manufactured controversy about the Thomases to distract from last week’s deeply concerning betrayal of confidence at the Supreme Court.

Mohyeldin took the bait and quickly pivoted to disparage Justice and Mrs. Thomas, happily allowing Kilmartin’s glorification of violence against preborn babies to slip by.

A few minutes later in the conversation, what did leave the rest of the panel in stunned silence was Kilmartin’s suggestion that “every Democratic member of Congress who’s over the age of 87 should go on a hunger strike for abortion rights, because let’s face it, they don’t have much longer anyway. You might as well go out a hero in a blaze of glory.”

“Laurie bringing the heat tonight,” Mohyeldin said awkwardly in response to that outburst, before endorsing her words by noting “that’s why we want you on the show, because we need a little levity.”

Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)