Cracks in the Wall

Cracks in the Wall

By John Mallon

Frances Kissling, president of "Catholics For a Free Choice" has a knack for heresy. She clearly enjoys it. Anyone who has seen her public presentations knows they amount to a comedy routine of poking her finger in the eye of the Catholic Church. But this time she may have gone too far. She has openly questioned some of the defined dogmas of the religion of radical feminism. She may find that the hierarchy of radical feminism is much less tolerant of dissent than the Catholic Church.

In an essay, "Is There Life After Roe? How to Think About the Fetus," (Conscience, Winter 2004/2005) Kissling attempts a reasoned appeal for a second look at the value of fetal life while still accepting feminist presuppositions. Nevertheless, this is not likely to go down well with doctrinaire feminists who see any admission of fetal value as the first flick of the finger that will bring down the entire house of cards that is Roe vs. Wade. So, is reason allowed? Or will Kissling be condemned for her heresy?

The abortion lobby must know on some level they are doomed. They have sought for years to shore up a retaining wall against not only reason but truth when it comes to defending Roe vs. Wade. It is common knowledge the decision is built on lies and that wall must inevitably crumble. The strongest force in nature is life and the strongest forces in the supernatural are love and truth. These forces met and kissed in the Incarnation—an act of conception. (See Psalm 85:10)

Kissling's essay, unwittingly or not, reveals the cracks in the edifice. She speaks only of the "fetus" throughout, and even explains that in pro-abortion circles, "words like 'baby' are avoided, not just because they are inaccurate, but because they are loaded."

She speaks of emerging legislation aimed at establishing protection to the unborn, saying, "The most emotionally charged legislation was the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which introduced an extra penalty for anyone convicted of harming a fetus during the commission of certain federal crimes ... It gave separate legal status to a fertilized egg, embryo or fetus, even if the woman did not know she was pregnant." Then, in the next sentence says this legislation was "Crafted in the wake of the death of Laci and Conner Peterson ..."

Oops. What's this? One page earlier the term "baby" was "inaccurate" and "loaded." Now, in Kissling's own words, Conner Peterson's tragic death is not merely that of a "fetus" or even a "baby" but a person with a name. Which is it?

Granted, under the awful circumstances of Laci and Conner's death it is unknown whether Conner died inside or outside of Laci's womb. Either way, just examining the question does not help the abortion lobby's cause. In fact, it throws into relief the absurdity and callousness of trying determine the value of a child's life depending on which end of the birth canal he is on. Intentionally or not, Kissling has raised the question and the abortion lobby is not going to like it.

She goes on: "The legislation captured people’s sympathy. Prochoice responses that focused on the fact that the legislation was not needed or that argued that it was a back door attempt to eviscerate the right to abortion made us seem heartless." 

Astonishingly, Kissling concludes, "As difficult as it may be, this may have been one piece of legislation we could have tolerated. In the war of ideas, not every hill is worth climbing."

Counseling the abortion lobby to choose their battles demonstrates their dilemma and good reason for panic. They know the slightest breeze of reason could bring down Roe—the questions raised in Laci and Conner's Law not the least among them.

Since the 2004 election, Americans of common sense are finding their voice and beginning to stand up against the intimidation of "Political Correctness." Reason is not a tool of the "Patriarchy" to oppress women. No one thinks women are breeding machines. There is no question that the true cause of women has been sidetracked—hijacked—for 35 years by falsely pitting women against the child in their wombs. 

Radical, abortion-at-all-costs feminism is neo-pagan and Marxist. Wherever paganism appears human sacrifice is not far behind. Wherever Marxism appears people start dying in class warfare over power. It doesn't work.

But what of Frances Kissling? Are the millions of prayers said for her beginning to take root?