The Progressive Liberals' Fear of Freedom of Speech: Overturning Roe v. Wade

 Nothing maddens progressive liberals as much as freedom of speech when it doesn't concur with their carefully crafted and often nonsensical gospel.

The best recent illustration of this is when Elon Musk announced that he was purchasing the Twitter social media platform which, along with Facebook, had for years penalized people and groups for expressing conservative opinions contrary to progressive liberalism.

The mainstream media is also guilty of that bias.

Immediately, the liberal ladies of the left began to shriek that such a purchase was directed against them and their right to abortion, that it was intended to overturn the Supreme Court decision regarding the case of Roe v. Wade some fifty years earlier.

Nowhere did Musk state that his purchase of Twitter had anything to do with Roe v. Wade. He merely stated that he would allow that platform to post alternative points of view.

That alone was enough to drive progressive liberals and the Democratic Party batshit crazy.

Fifty years ago, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a woman's right to abortion based on the constitutional right to privacy.

The US Constitution is a wonderful document, second to none in the world as a basis for national government.

But it is what it is, nothing more.

And nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to privacy.

The justices of the Supreme Court therefore MADE Constitutional Law. They didn't interpret it, which is supposed to be their job.

This, apart from moral considerations of killing the preborn, is the reason that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and people knew this even as the Supreme Court made their decision, which is why the lethal ladies of the liberal Left and the Democratic politicians pandering to them preferred that freedom of speech be deferred on this subject.

And for years, social media platforms and the liberal news media concurred.

Actually, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade would have been better off citing the right to property, which IS mentioned in the Constitution, that a woman's body is her own property to do with as she wants.

However, the lethal ladies of the liberal Left went ballistic, arguing that no man has the right to tell them what to do with their bodies.

Some women claimed that they were going on a "sex strike" until their right to kill their preborn children is confirmed.

Lots of luck with that, ladies!

Some of the crazier ones spoke out at pro-abortion rallies, shrieking that pregnant women should "go and have it sucked out of their bodies," the "it" being their unborn children.

The Democratic Party even went so far as to attempt to pass a federal law guaranteeing a woman's right to abortion up until birth!

It failed in the Senate, producing dismay from some Democratic politicians, who have decided to confuse women's health with the right to abortion.

It isn't.

Other civilized countries where abortion is permitted limit that procedure to the first trimester of pregnancy; our Democratic politicians wanted that extended up until the point of birth!

Some more extreme women demanded that the child be "aborted" AFTER birth, once the child has passed out of the mother's body. To kill a living baby already born!

That is infanticide! It is not just a "clump of cells," as pro-abortion people like to argue.

Isn't all life on the planet a "clump of cells?"

But they don't care.

To these lethal ladies and their pandering politicians, pregnancies are an embarrassment, the result of lust and/or incaution. Contraception, easily available, is to them a nuisance and perhaps "not natural."

Abortion isn't natural, either.

Perhaps that's why the progressive Left and their politicians are largely unconcerned with the increase in violence and homicides plaguing America right now. Perhaps they see murder as merely making abortion retro-active.

What they are promoting is a new barbarism based on a "selfish pig" philosophy dressed up as liberal progressivism and "women's health," screaming about their rights and their freedoms.

Evan condoms, cheap and available everywhere, are a bother to them, although condoms also can be protective against transmitting venereal diseases as well as preventing pregnancy.

And condoms don't require a prescription.

Here men are to blame as well, because every time you have unprotected sex, you are having sex with everyone your partner has had for the last few years, and might get a little something extra from your experience besides an unwanted pregnancy and child support payments. Like gonorrhea, syphilis and chlamydia, to name three.

For those unfamiliar with what the abortion procedure entails, there are several graphic animated videos on YouTube that detail the process. They are not for the faint-hearted and how someone would consider doing it to a living creature is beyond me.

And please don't keep telling everyone that rape and incest are the reasons for abortions when there is no statistical evidence to prove it.

As for being a "women's health issue" and the life of the mother would be threatened if this pregnancy continued, why just this pregnancy? Why not all pregnancies? Why not simply be sterilized and never worry about it again?

That would be the logical conclusion to be made.

And despite what some liberal Democratic politicians have been saying lately, men CANNOT get pregnant and can therefore have abortions.

This very concept is the sort of craziness that liberal progressivism has been trying to promote, only it's not working.

Yet Democratic politicians are making an issue of being pro-abortion to win re-election in the mid-term elections.

And, to the women out there, yes, your body is your own business, but why are you letting men use it to enjoy themselves at your expense? If you are unconcerned about the ramifications of having unprotected sex, why should the man?

Your best bet would be to hand him a condom and tell him to put a cover on his spout before he lets his monkey out. 

If he won't, send him packing. He couldn't have been all that good, anyway.

It sure beats killing the preborn.