From Life News comes this.
Obama Judicial Pick Cornelia Pillard: Abortion Needed to “Free Women From Maternity”
by Tony PerkinsA lot can happen between now and Congress’s August recess — and that’s exactly what conservatives should be concerned about. Senate Democrats seem to be banking on the fact that Americans are on vacation and not paying attention, because liberal leaders are trying to slip in a quiet confirmation hearing for Cornelia “Nina” Pillard.
A Georgetown law professor, Pillard is the President’s latest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — and only the second one since President George W. Bush to wait less than two months for a hearing.
Why the rush? Ed Whalen of NRO’s Bench Memos suspects that Pillard (who’s been described to him as “less moderate” than the most activist liberal in appellate court history) wouldn’t survive intense scrutiny. The hurry, Whalen warns, “seems designed to prevent a careful review of their records. Obama himself has taken forever to make nominations to the D.C. Circuit, and that court remains underworked, so it is difficult to see the justification for the sudden rush.”
Unfortunately for Americans, the Senate won’t have to dig too deep to uncover some of Pillard’s shockers. Among some of her greatest hits, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General argues that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” [Not just pro-abortion, but anti-mother, too.] As if her militant feminism wasn’t apparent enough, she takes the opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the abortion-contraception mandate as “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
[…]
The Obama Administration just gets better and better.
Loading ...
It saddens me that Professor Pillard works for the supposedly “Catholic” institution of Georgetown.
abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity
in other words, desertion.
“free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.”
For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
I wonder if the Georgetown faculty member has ever read the last sentence of Romans 1.
“reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
Yes, I am. I only must (and reluctantly!) acknowledge that, for cowardice, prudence or lack of opportunity, I am not reinforcing the broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders forcefully enough. (Also, I generally don’t see the force in “reinforcing” so much, but I do agree that’s peripheral to the issue.)
There is a good case to say that the children wished for, taken alone, simply are not enough to have a surviving nation.
Of course none of these arguments establish the natural law morality as taught by the Catholic Church (that abortion and contraception are forbidden). This establishing is done safely on other grounds; quite plain and obvious grounds in abortion, maybe less plain but still existing grounds in contraception. Still, even that we need some to breed our children is an argument against abortion; not for it.
And also, women tend to, generally, wish to be mothers. But I digress…
Only a Jesuit institution would see fit to reward such a person with a professorship. I don’t doubt she has a lot of like minded friends in the faculty there, clergy included. It’s all part of that moving ‘beyond Jesus’ meme of her and her fellow travellers.
The Company really needs to be forcibly disbanded (little hope of that right now…last chance was in the early 80s at the end of the Arrupe era), the faithful ones moved to solid orders, the rest have their faculties removed and returned to the lay state, and their colleges, houses, and holdings parceled out to the remaining orders showing signs of life and unity with the Church.
Conscription. Hmmm. Didn’t the military just outlaw not allowing women in front-line combat positions? The military image here is, clearly, intentional. She means to make it sound as if women are INVOLUNTARY participants in motherhood. They aren’t accidental mothers, but mothers against their will, if this professor is to be understood. If women are mothers against their wills, surely this means that rape has occurred, since Planned Parenthood has provided means to prevent “unintended” pregnancy.
Wouldn’t this mean, however, that the woman’s body is a sort of prison, into which she is placed? What I mean is that, biologically speaking, a women is the only one who has the capacity to bear children, but bearing children is something that – at least as this professor understands it – women do only under duress. Their own bodies impose this duress upon them, since this corporeal form is what gives them the ability to conceive and bear children. Is this a stepping stone to declaring genetics (which is the code, by which the woman’s body is created) and biology discriminatory?
Religion is, apparently, discriminatory, for it subjugates women.
Science is also, apparently, discriminatory, for it compels women, historically, to be unwilling women – and thus potential mothers.
Whenever you hear of a Catholic college/university/high school that ignores the Magisterium, it is usually a Jesuit school (Georgetown, BC, Gonzaga, LMU, USF, Santa Clara all come to mind), with the exception of Notre Dame and sometimes Dayton. It’s unfortunate that they still run high schools, too.
pannw “I wonder if the Georgetown faculty member has ever read the last sentence of Romans 1.” I’ve seen Jesuits apologize for Gospel readings, so I don’t think a Georgetown lawyer reads anything like that anyway!
From:
This paper can be downloaded free of charge from:
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/188
“Antiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women’s incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a “vision of the woman’s role” as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection.”
This lady’s mind is so twisted that it is hard to know where to begin. Her entire world-view structure is based on a total and complete autonomy of the “ego” completely divorced from any possibility of relating to anyone outside of “self”. It reads like some sort of an anti-Evangelium. She thinks that our Constitution is an affirmation of absolute repudiation of any and all responsibility. She should be institutionalized asap.
That being said, someone at Georgtown thought that she would make a great teacher.
Interviewed by a Senate Committee:
“Millett spoke about how her approach to the law would not be affected by her strong Christian faith, after using her opening statement to introduce the pastor of her church along with her family members in the audience.
“My religious faith is the biggest part of who I am and I’m proud of that and it is something that’s incredibly important to me,” Millett said. “But our constitution is a very precious system of justice that it creates. And it creates judges to decide cases based not on personal views, not on background, but based on rule of law.”
There seemed to be agreement that she is well qualified. The opposition is that Republicans claim ht the President is trying to change the balance on the court.
“There was no dispute among members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Millett, an Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld partner who has argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, has the credentials and experience to serve on a bench that’s often considered the nation’s second highest court….”
“Still, Millett spent much of the time listening to Republicans explain the political rationale behind why they will fight against her confirmation in addition to two other pending D.C. Circuit nominees. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) spent about five minutes today laying out exactly where Millett stands, “irrespective of your very fine professional qualifications.”
“You find yourself in the midst of a broader battle. And a battle on issues many of which are unconnected to your professional background qualifications, but issues sadly that have consumed the D.C. Circuit for decades,” said Cruz, who said he has known Millett for a long time.”
“Millett heard Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) compliment her work history and then explain how President Barack Obama is trying to pack the D.C. Circuit to get more favorable rulings about federal agency administrative actions…”
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/07/for-dc-circuit-nominee-credentials-are-not-the-controversy.html
I wonder how her two daughters feel about her position on being classed as a presumptive breeder.
Patricia Millet is not a Professor at Georgetown. She is not listed in the faculty directory.
She is a partner in a Washington Law firm. According to her biogrphy on the law firm site, her connection wih Georgetown is that she is a “member of the Outside Advisory Board for the Georgetown Law School’s Supreme Court Institute”
http://www.akingump.com/en/lawyers-advisors/patricia-ann-millett.html
“Patricia Millet is not a Professor at Georgetown . . . her connection with Georgetown is that she is a ‘member of the Outside Advisory Board for the Georgetown Law School’s Supreme Court Institute.’”
Now I feel better. And I see an honorary degree from Notre Dame in her future. ;)
I wonder if she regrets her own mother’s “conscription” during the time she was in her womb. These are truly evil times.
jhayes, what are you talking about? No one has mentioned a Patricia Millet. So why bring her up? The post is about Cornelia Pillard.
Pillard IS a member of Georgetown Law. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/pillard-nina.cfm
FYI, “Exorcist” author and graduate of Georgetown U., William Peter Blatty, has had enough! He and 1200 alumni are suing to have its Catholic status removed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/william-peter-blatty-georgetown-catholic_n_3406346.html
I am not American but I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university?
Perhaps Professor Pillard is just aspiring to make sure that motherhood is rare, safe (that is, subject to abortion up to at least during full-term delivery), and legal – for those who fulfill the licencing requirements. Hey, it’s not as if she’s suggesting Alfas and Betas should be subject to Bokanovsky’s process, or something!
(I presume jhayes is thinking, among other things, of “Obama struck a more aggressive tone in June with a Rose Garden announcement to appoint Millett, Cornelia Pillard and U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins to the appellate court. The move could ultimately determine the size of the imprint his presidency leaves on the nation’s courts” in the story he links.)
Venerator Sti Lot,
With all due respect, that quotation you mentioned regarding Millet is NOT from Fr. Z ‘s post nor from any commentator’s post except jhayes who inserted the person into this thread. Millet is NOT the subject of Father Z’s post so why bring her up? It’s a rabbit hole IMHO, but I defer to our esteemed host in that regard. Let’s return to discussing the pro-abort Pillard.
The view of Professor Pillard is consistent with President Obama’s view that he would not want his daughters “punished with a baby” if they made a mistake.
acardnal,
I was quite ignorant as to Professor Pillard until a few minutes ago, and am about equally ignorant as to “Millett […and] U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins”. But if someone may be correct in saying “Obama struck a more aggressive tone in June with a Rose Garden announcement to appoint” all three “to the appellate court” and “The move could ultimately determine the size of the imprint his presidency leaves on the nation’s courts”, then it might be a good idea to try to learn more about all three.
Bob B. says:
I’ve seen Jesuits apologize for Gospel readings, so I don’t think a Georgetown lawyer reads anything like that anyway!
I’m quite sure you are correct. However, the way things are going, they are going to have to start apologizing for the scriptures coming to pass right before people’s eyes, because Romans 1 is happening to the letter. How they deny it is beyond me and then to be teachers…. Oh the thousands and thousands of young souls they have led into error… As much as I fear judgment, I would not want to stand before the Just Judge and have to try to explain that one. God have mercy.
Dear @Andrew, I beg to differ.
We have, at times, punished those who disagreed with us and forced them with force, but we have never ever sunk to the level of sending them to closed psychiatry. Only the Communists did that.
At least this is what I imagine is meant with the word “institutionalize”… though I am no native speaker of English.
I’d appreciate it if it remains that way.
“I am not American but I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university?”
Hank, you are quite correct. Georgetown *WAS* a Catholic university. It no longer is. This latest news is another anecdote that confirms that.
Nominating Pillard to the U. S. Circuit Court is like nominating a physicist who can multiply for a Nobel Prize – and, no, by multiply, I don’t mean reproduce.
The Chicken
Let me fix that :(
Nominating Pillard to the U. S. Circuit Court is like nominating a physicist who can’t multiply for a Nobel Prize – and, no, by multiply, I don’t mean reproduce.
The Chicken
I wonder if POTUS’ main advisor is the one who has breakfast with him every morning.
Call your Senators. Of course–once again–the Democrats are the majority in the Senate and Biden can break any tie.
Unfortunately the Obama judicial appointments will have a long term effect on the future of this country. I realize all of the Republican appointments(Roberts and Kennedy come to mind–even though they are Catholic) do not match our expectations but just about all of the Democrat appointments are disastrous.
acardnal wrote: “jhayes, what are you talking about? No one has mentioned a Patricia Millet”
Thanks for correcting my mistake. President Obama nominated two women to the DC Circuit at the same time: Patricia Millet and Nina Pillard. I mixed them up in my post.
Here’s Nina Pillard’s bio from Georgetown:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/pillard-nina.cfm
Hank Igitur wrote: “I am not American but I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university?”
It is. As it says on it’s website:
“Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world.”
http://www.georgetown.edu/about/
@Chris Garton-Zavesky Wouldn’t this mean, however, that the woman’s body is a sort of prison, into which she is placed? … Is this a stepping stone to declaring genetics (which is the code, by which the woman’s body is created) and biology discriminatory?
Yes. Some feminist theory says this. That’s what the slogan “biology is not destiny” turns into. It’s why some feminists consider lesbianism to be more “pure” than heterosexual relationships, and accept transgender surgery. The body is, in fact, a “thing” and the true “essence” of femininity is something spiritual, not bound to anything as crass as “bodies”.
And yes, they use the term “breeder” instead of “mother.” A woman’s ability to give birth is a purely animal capability. One may “conscript” a woman to “breed”, but somehow, it still doesn’t go over too well to talk about “conscripting” a woman to “be a mother.” No woman wants to be a “breeder” but most still want to be “mothers”.
The “problem” is that even at the absolute minimum (pregnancy and childbirth, leading to giving the child to someone else to care for, whether through adoption, nannies or daycare), the woman’s role in motherhood puts them at a disadvantage. There’s always been a tension between a woman’s role as a mother and her other potential roles in society. Historically, societies try to resolve the tension by providing support for most women through marriage, while at the same time barring them from certain roles thought by the society (rightly or wrongly) to be inconsistent with motherhood.
In our society, we no longer bar women from any role at all and we no longer provide marriage as a support (it’s easier to get out of a marriage than most contracts, whether your spouse wants it or not) – the only support we provide is government welfare, and the means to avoid motherhood while still having sex (contraception) or to prevent birth (abortion).
Contraception and abortion are direct attacks on female biology. It was an incredibly ingenuous trick to get them associated with “women’s rights” and “women’s health.” Orwellian newspeak.
Dear @maryh, altogether interesting. Taking that as an occasion for some musings of my own…
I would dispute that as a general notion, women were debarred from functions based on their “conscription” (as a former conscript I acknowledge that conscription can be a necessity and it is honorable to fulfill one’s duties, hence I use the word without derogatory sense and, somewhat, think it is actually a good one) into motherhood.
If I remember correctly (cannot find now a citation), the Catholic Encyclopedia, back in the day, hails the prospect that women become something else than representative queens of society… and that was certainly a 19th century upper-class phenomenon, which has as much binding force, even as an example, on us as any such thing.
A farmer and a farmer’s wife had equal amount and (excepting the rare cases where the farmer, as head of the family – see below -, had to speak a word of power) equally important amount of work to do.
Indeed, a great force behind the “women equality” (which is not totally a bad thing, though in the times of forcefully imposed quota systems, “women’s rights” such as abortion and contraception, etc. one does not like to acknowledge that) was simply the invention of washing and dishwashing machines, central heating, and the like. A great part of what was once the entirely necessary job of “housewife” (when a housemaid of a widower or bachelor could be “promoted” to wife, as for instance humourously described by Wilhelm Busch in his Tobias Knopp) has simply been subject to automatization.
Women are debarred from priesthood. Beyond that, societies seem to have agreed that leadership (though not counselling), in itself, is for men, except for exceptions. And this is just about where the Middle Ages and early Catholic modern times go.
In addition, women seem to have been rather kept out, or have kept themselves out of artistry, with the exception of play-acting (and the not so very old love-novel), and of science. Wherever the world was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, there did appear the occasional woman to go into there. The reason, here, whatever it was, was not motherhood either. (Motherhood is perfectly and obviously compatible with painting pictures or making verses.)
A great deal of the women-second-class thing, ever present in Heathenism, seems to have been introduced by Protestantism and Enlightenment, and perhaps by the democratic movement (which multiplied the positions of official leadership while long time reserving them for men). I cannot give the accurate causalities, but maybe the ideal of the “responsible man”, etc., maybe also that Protestants lost the female element of Heaven, maybe an increasing separation of man and woman due to moral scrupolosity (it was clear that, if only one to sex, then it was man the public sphere would belong to) have played a role.
Whatever the reasons, I know stories from Protestant Germany where a wife would wait on her husband without sitting down to the family meal (and even though a housemaid was also present), and I do think that in Austria, or at least in Italy, this would not have been possible at any time.
Coming to think of it, there’s that naming of woman. As for me, I am biased, but when Jane Smith marries John Miller, I consider the address “Mrs John Miller” as disappreciating of woman. I also consider “Mrs Jane Smith” or “Mrs Jane Smith-Miller” (except for some circumstances) or “Ms [anything]” feminist. The only possible alternative under normal circumstances, to me, is “Mrs Jane Miller”, keeping the given name, changing the surname. But then… I’m biased, and all this is not necessarily logical.
Well… I’m against reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women & men as a class of presumptive sex addicts! So if she wants to end ‘conscriptive’ motherhood, then she should champion the virtues of chastity & outlaw pre-marital sex! But I guess there are some forms of slavery that people voluntarily enjoy too much! Enough to murder for!
The only possible alternative under normal circumstances, to me, is “Mrs Jane Miller”
In more formal times, that would have meant that she was the widow of Mr. Miller.
Sorry, forgot to close he italics after the first sentence