Day Three of the commie/libtards trying to besmirch Amy Coney Barrett...

 good luck with that, fools.

It seems Roe v Wade is uppermost in the minds of the left.  We all know that women cannot be "equal" with their fellow homo sapiens without the right to sacrifice their unborn children. 

Listen to the slatternly Kamala Harris lecture Barrett on how important "right to choose" is and how Ruth Bader Ginsberg wholeheartedly supported abortion - at any time and for any reason.

First - let's make something abundantly clear. Harris opens by referencing Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat in the Supreme Court. It is not Ruth Bader Ginsburg's "seat." The "seat" belongs to the Supreme Court, and by extension, the people of the United States.

Listening to Kamala Harris should dispel any doubt in your mind we are dealing with Godless monsters.

Obama on anniversary of Roe v Wade

the most pro-death president in the history of this country said: 

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

 What in hell does that mean?  How is a woman aborting a live baby ensuring equal rights with men?  Are men planning on having abortions, too?  How does abortion guarantee some sort of "opportunity?"   Do women get up every day and "dream" about an abortion? 

This is a typical meaningless sentence chock full of Pavlovian words guaranteed to make a loony leftie drool with self-righteousness.    

And how about the equal rights of the men who don't want their child aborted?  Oh, wait - they don't have any rights. 

Read entire Obama statement

More:

Big Journalism:   C-SPAN Casts March For Life As Simply “Anti-Abortion” Rally

Expecting good updates from Catholic bloggers who are attending today i.e. The Archbold's of Creative Minority Report,  Kat, The Crescat, and Stephanie of Digital Hairshirt.  

You can't legislate morality...

is a rather silly statement.

All laws are passed to enforce someone's concept of morality, including such seemly inconsequential things as protecting the spotted owl.   Because, you see, to someone it's immoral not to make sure these birds have a long and healthy life.

That's what makes Roe v Wade bad law.  We all agree that under normal circumstances it's immoral to kill another human being.   Yet this law ignores basic reasoning to declare that a woman has a "right to choose" to commit murder in the interests of her privacy.  The real problem arises because when a bad law such as this hangs around long enough it subverts moral thinking in the citizens.  Slowly but surely, the immoral becomes moral in the culture of a society.  This is why we now encounter the arguments for euthanizing old or sick people when it shouldn't even be a topic for conversation. 

The choice facing the citizens is whose moral code are you willing to follow?

“I love it when the Left, and the president, says, ‘Don’t try to impose your values on us, you folks who hold your Bibles in your hand and cling to your guns."  “It’s equally imposing values.   It’s just in their world, if it’s Biblically based or religiously based, it’s out.  If it’s anything else, bring it on.” Rick Santorum  source

Why we can’t not legislate morality

“You can’t legislate morality” has become a common turn of phrase. The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve. Indeed, no governing authority can in any way be understood to be morally neutral. Those who think such a chimerical understanding is possible could hardly be more wrong. For, in fact, the opposite is true: You cannot not legislate morality.

It is of course true that some laws will be better conceived than others, and many may fail entirely to achieve their purpose. But that they have a purpose, and that the purpose includes at least an implicit moral element, is incontrovertible. One need only ask of any law or action of government, “What is the law for?” The answer at some point will include a conception of what is good for the community in which the law holds. The inversion of the question makes the point even more clearly. What would provide a rationale for a law or governmental action apart from a moral purpose? read the rest and ponder