What Did Obama Know & When Did He Know It?

This is a summary of a Hannity segment I came across in a blog I know nothing about – and honestly, looks a little weird – but it’s an accurate representation of what was said, and what was said is important – despite Hannity’s involvement 😉

The first guest, Sara Carter of Circa keeps showing up in my reading on this whole Trump/Obama Spygate affair and she seems to have some good sources or instincts or both.

The other guest, attorney Jay Sekulow, has been a great champion for those targeted and abused by the Obama regime. I’ve seen him speak & testify many times and he’s a bulldog.

As for Hannity… well… he’s not the brightest bulb and even if he were, he’s so far up Trump’s butt you’d never see the light, but Sara & Jay carry the segment anyway, so, enjoy.

Sara Carter and Jay Sekulow joined Sean Hannity as the anticipation for “smoking gun” revelations proving that Obama spied on President Trump mounts. Hannity notes that every day, everything Carter said is coming true. He asks her what she thinks about what Devin Nunes has said and also about a James Rosen article just posted.

She predicts it’s not going to be  “just one little piece of evidence but an accumulation of evidence that’s going to expose what’s been going on” with the Obama regime spying on citizens. She recognizes that after the information is delivered to chairman Nunes [Friday March 24, 2017] we’ll be much better informed. She notes the expansion by Obama of the intelligence sharing under executive order 12333, wondering why and what changed.

She asks, “If it was legal to collect all of this evidence, not the unmasking of all of these names, but if this was collected legally, was there something else that happened before this that we’re not aware of yet?” She felt Chairman Nunes was dancing around that question a little bit in his earlier interview with Hannity.

Sekulow talks about the statement by Chairman Nunes that some of this information was obtained prior to the expansion of executive order 12333 and that the implication is that this information could have been disclosed without any “perceived or claimed” legitimacy under that illegitimate executive order.

Sekulow says, “You know what I think we’ve got here Sean? I think we’ve got a Constitutional crisis of James Comey’s making. So this is a Constitutional crisis from Comey and Comey was an administration official also under ‘president’ Obama. And this idea that ‘president’ Obama did not order it does not answer the question of was the Obama administration responsible for this because the fact is, and this is clear, they were the administration in power.”

Carter thinks it goes past Comey to the highest levels of the Obama regime. “We need to find out who unmasked these names,” she says, “and it wasn’t just Director Comey. There were other people who had access to this and the NSA can unmask these names. So who requested that? That’s one of the most important, important questions here Sean, and why. And I think once those questions start to get answered, just like Chairman Nunes said, then we’ll know, was there political espionage? And if there was, Sean, this is the greatest civil liberties violations that we have seen in our country in a long time.”

Sekulow recommends subpoenaing Obama directly, compeling him to answer the questions directly. “You want to find out what he knew and when he knew it? Ask him, especially if this was not anything outside the scope of legitimacy. So if this was ‘a legal surveillance,’ but they unmasked this information, ask the ‘president’ directly.”

He also believes that Attorney General Sessions should impanel a grand jury. He added, “Number two, for the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he needs to get the background data, because what he saw in those reports shocked him, obviously. Not just because it named President Trump potentially and his associates, but also the nature of the dissemination itself. And that dissemination, that unmasking can well be a crime, so they need to get the background data.”

Once again he stresses that President Trump can get the information they need to pursue this. He needs to get it “and Jeff Sessions needs to be working on it tonight.”

Hannity adds that James Comey now needs to come clean with the American people and tell us what he knows.” That is an area where Comey might opt to plead the 5th, Sean, like so many Democrats eventually find themselves doing. His conduct over the past year or so indicates that is a very strong possibility, once his Teflon of “an ongoing investigation” is removed.

*I made some extremely minor corrections to the text/punctuation for ease of reading.

### end ###


“When the president is not Barack Obama, the New York Times delights in holding presidents accountable for anything and everything…”  Yes. Sometimes they don’t even wait that long.

(The finger pointing down 👇🏻 in my tweet below is confusing. In the original tweet, as it appears on Twitter, the paragraph graphic w/the yellow circle was BELOW my text. When I embed it here, it’s ABOVE. Sorry for the confusion if you don’t use/understand Twitter, but I can’t help it!)

And for the entirety of the Bush Administration, if members of the Editorial Board at The New York Times got a warm salad fork at The Palm it was BUSH’S FAULT. They blamed him FOR EVERYTHING. No matter HOW INSANE. Yes, “the buck stops” there, with the president, but good grief. It was taken to absurd lengths. Then January 20, 2009 happened and the world was made anew. And somehow, magically, Black Jesus rose above it all. And there he remains, despite *FIVE AGENCIES * investigating Trump and ‘handing intel around the White House.’ Jeffrey Lord (shameless Trump* apologist) makes exactly this case below, in his Newsbusters article. Apologista aside, he’s right. 100% right. It deserves to be read in its entirety, so I post it here, in full, for your consideration.

By the NYT’s Own Standards, Paper Should Hold Obama Responsible for Spying

Words matter.

Fact: The administration of President Barack Obama surveilled the campaign associates of the President’s political opponent, Donald Trump. Then the classified information gained was leaked to the press – repeatedly. All of which furthered a liberal narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

How do we know? Because the New York Times says so.

This week White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer went in to considerable detail – specifics – on press reports of Obama spying on Trump. Yet time after time after time the media across the board – yes, even Fox News – just blatantly ignored the evidence and, worse, insisted there was none. More astoundingly, Republican members of Congress are denying outright that the evidence that is right in front of them – presented in detail by the New York Times and others – even exists.

The irritating-to-the-media fact that talk radio’s Mark Levin broke through this media dam of denial was momentarily dealt with by the media – and dismissed. So, it’s time for a “for-the-record” listing of the specifics that the media is quite deliberately ignoring – specifics that show beyond doubt that, yes indeed, the New York Times has documented in chapter and verse that the Obama Administration – the very same administration that surveilled the e-mails of Fox correspondent James Rosen, tried to force New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal his sources for a CIA-related book – and, notably – had to apologize to an irate German Chancellor Angela Merkel for allegedly surveilling her cell phone – did in fact conduct surveillance of Trump associates. (Note: Reporter Risen called Obama the  “Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation”.)

Here’s another fact. When the president is not Barack Obama, the New York Times delights in holding presidents accountable for anything and everything that goes on in their administrations. Especially if their name is Reagan or George W. Bush.

In the Reagan era, there was the Iran-Contra affair, which involved a convoluted scheme by some administration officials to trade arms for hostages and use the monies received from Iran to fund the anti-Communist Nicaraguan contras. The President had no knowledge of this. Yet he was pounded by the New York Times  – and many others – in the media to take responsibility for what happened. Examples:

The Times raged on in a December, 2, 1986 editorial about “President Reagan and His Operators,” which began thusly:

“Against news of a startling plunge in his popularity, President Reagan has gone from blaming the press for the Iran arms scandal finally to some constructive steps to end it.”

Got that? The Times is saying that instead of blaming the press for holding him accountable for something others in his administration did without his knowledge, Reagan needed to get on with “constructive steps” to correct the problem that he, Reagan, was responsible for as chief executive.

In a Times editorial from November 22, 1987, the paper was once again holding Reagan personally responsible for something he did not know about or authorize.  Specifically the paper said that Reagan accepted “nominal responsibility” for the actions of others but he was “the man who made it all possible.” He was specifically accused of abusing the public trust even though there was no proof – none – that he had authorized the arms for hostages enterprise.

Then there was this Times editorial from March 6, 1987, titled: “The President and the Quagmire.” Among other things the Times said – bold print supplied:

“President Reagan still cannot pronounce the word ''I'' in the same sentence as the word ''mistake.'' If his speech about the Iran-contra scandal Wednesday was intended as a confession of error, his heart wasn't in it. He sounded at times like a man who's sure he hasn't done anything wrong -and promises never to do it again.

But despite some grudging, fudging aspects, Mr. Reagan's appearance brought a welcome advance. With this speech he accepted, and demonstrated, responsibility.”

Got that? Reagan didn’t do anything wrong. He didn’t know what had been done in his name. But be that as it may, these were the actions of people in his administration and therefore he had to make sure he stood up in front the nation and the world and “accepted, and demonstrated, responsibility.”

Lest one think this was just the Times posture of always holding Reagan accountable for the actions of his administration even when he was unaware of them, the Times made it a point to apply the same standard to George W. Bush. On May 14, 2004, the Times, in an uproar over the discovery of the mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers at the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison demanded that “Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress should stop trying to evade responsibility by accusing those who want to ask tough questions of being disloyal to the troops and the war effort.”

In other words? While those soldiers in Iraq may have done the actual deed of mistreating prisoners without President Bush’s knowledge much less assent, the ultimate person responsible for Abu Ghraib was Bush himself – and he needed to promptly “stop trying to evade responsibility,”

Now come Times stories like the following, all of which took place during the Obama administration:

The New York Times, January 19, 2017. Headline:

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

The story begins as follows, bold print supplied:

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump….

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

Full stop right there. The Times is saying in plain English that “law enforcement and intelligence agencies” are conducting “a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump…”

Question: Who exactly do these “law enforcement and intelligence agencies” and the cited FBI, National Security Agency, CIA and Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit work for? Answer? Just as those involved in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra affair worked for President Reagan, and those soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were the responsibility – per the Times – of President George W. Bush so too are all the people involved in the agencies listed above by the Times the responsibility of the sitting president of the day – President Barack Obama. Which is to say, members of the Obama administration were using, per the Times, “wiretapped communications” of  “associates” of Obama’s political opponent – identified by the Times as “President-elect Donald J. Trump.”

But the Times wasn’t done making this case that the Obama administration had in fact wiretapped or surveilled (and to be clear, wiretapping is a form of surveillance).

On March 1, 2017, the Times headlined:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

This story began:

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Question: Where did Obama “White House officials” get the “information… about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians” in the first place? The Times has already provided the answer: the Obama White House received this information from other Obama officials outside the White House. The information, received as the Times has noted, by Obama administration surveillance of the “associates” of candidate and President-elect Trump, was then used by Obama White House officials as they “scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government.”

Again? Who was the sitting President of the United States while all of this surveillance of Trump “associates” were being conducted? And reported right there in the Times? A paper presumably read by the White House staff at a minimum if not the President himself? That’s right: President Obama.

It boggles the mind that the media – not to mention Republican members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – are saying they have found no evidence that the Obama administration was using surveillance to spy on President Trump. Let’s not play games and say that “associates” of the President somehow are not the President.

Note well the irony here. Already every word or deed from someone somewhere in the newborn Trump administration has the media holding President Trump himself responsible for whatever was said or done. When press secretary Sean Spicer appeared in the White House press briefing room to scorch the press for its inauguration coverage – the Timesblamed the President. It may be a high profile adviser – Spicer, Steve Bannon or Kellyanne Conway today or during the campaign Corey Lewandowski – or it could be some fringe supporter involved in some fracas out there  on the trail. It could be an unwated endorsement from David Duke.  No matter, the Times and the rest of the media hold and held Trump himself personally responsible.

But Barack Obama? The central figure in a blossoming scandal that had  – per the New York Times – members of his administration wiretapping or otherwise surveilling his opponent’s “associates”? Well, yawn, no big deal.

One can only wonder whether members of Congress read the Times reporting. Or whether Times reporters themselves have read their own work. One wonders what Shep Smith over there at Fox News has possibly been thinking when he says “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the president of the United States was surveilled at any time in any way, full stop.”  Here’s a bulletin from the New York Times, Shep:

“ American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump…”

Those “intercepted communications and financial transactions” from Trump “associates” working for Obama’s political adversary were in fact reported by the Times as intercepted by the Obama administration.

Words matter. And the New York Times – which stands by the words in its reporting on this and refuses to back away – has produced something else besides words.

Memo to the larger media, Speaker Ryan and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? That something else is called “evidence.”

I will leave you with this tweet which I have had **pinned to my Twitter home page since yesterday.

*If you’re new here, you should know I was hard core Ted Cruz and left the Republican Party the day after he lost the Indiana primary (making Trump the nominee.) I was, and remain, “never Trump” but like with all presidents, will support him when he acts in harmony with the Constitution. Don’t confuse my support of principles as they relate to the office he holds with support of him. They are two different things.

**Pins change. By the time you read this, it may not be there. Small point, but needed saying in case, again, you are unfamiliar with Twitter.



Via Breitbart (I know, I know… but it’s where I saw the transcript of her remarks. So down. Down!) As any of you who have ever had a black girlfriend know, the hands-on-the-hips slap-down is a sight to behold, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it. Sonnie’s hands were on her hips and a whole lotta smackdown was goin’ on!


NOTE: CPAC = Conservative Political Action Committee, BLM = Black Lives Matter

Sonnie Johnson at CPAC: ‘Systemic Racism and White Supremacy’ Belong to the Democrats

(Black female) conservative commentator Sonnie Johnson slammed progressive politics for hurting black business owners and wrecking families in a fiery Feb. 23 CPAC speech at the National Harbor.

“What if I told you I actually agree with Black Lives Matter? What if I told you institutionalized racism is real in America?” Johnson said, describing how progressive president Woodrow Wilson believed America would be better “if the races were segregated.” She continued:

What if I told you institutionalized racism was real in America and came through a president named FDR? What if I told you that minimum wage [laws] was to protect white jobs from black workers, through unionization? That actually happened in this country. What if I told you that price controls put out by FDR actually bankrupted black farms? People who worked for themselves their entire lives were now forced to go to government and beg for welfare? What if I told you excessive taxation and regulation took these people that were newly-freed slaves already… and crushed those businesses?

“What if I told you that white supremacy is real in America, and it came with the very first gun law? That black people had no right to protect themselves from the KKK?” Johnson said to applause and appreciative “amens” from the audience.

“What if I told you white supremacy was real in the form of Planned Parenthood?” Johnson continued to growing applause. Progressives put “Planned Parenthood centers right in black neighborhoods.”

“What if I told you white supremacism was real in the criminal justice system, because you have people that think they can change human nature by passing a law, and they realized that they could [bypass] the Thirteenth Amendment and still restrict you to slavery by convicting you of a crime?”

All of these factors “culminated in a campaign of a self-professed, Woodrow Wilson-era progressive,” Johnson said. “Who wants to push an FDR jobs program. Who loves Planned Parenthood. And who hasn’t met a gun law she didn’t like. And who ran on the Democrats’ side: Hillary Clinton.” (“Mmm-hmm,” the audience replied in unison.)

“Every single aspect of systemic racism and white supremacy they have pushed remains on the Democratic side,” she said, later adding: “They came from the Democrat side and they remain on the Democrat side.”

Johnson concluded that she had a message to deliver to “those black families out there that are listening.”

“You have an option. You have a choice. I am not telling you this administration. I am not telling you this president. I am telling you this conservative ideology is your choice. I’m not telling you it’s fun. I am not telling you it is easy. I’m telling you in the end, it is worth it,” she said. “Every single drop is worth it.”

“So, before I go, it’s a battle with Black Lives Matter. Can we build our own damn army, please?” she said to wild applause.

Amen, sister.


“What Will We Do With His Clothes?”

40 years ago February 8th, my brother Daniel died. I was 11 1/2 at the time. He was 18. It was a car wreck. He crashed his souped-up mini-van into a tree, lingered a week, then died.

The morning of his death, I walked downstairs to see our neighbor, Mrs. Murphy doing the dishes. I turned the corner from the stairs, took the short-cut through the formal dining room to get to the kitchen and saw her back at the sink. That was my first clue something was terribly wrong. She’d never done that before. Lovely lady, to be sure, but she’d never done our dishes for us.

My mother brought me into the formal living room, sat me down on a dusty rose velvet love seat and told me. I don’t remember her exact words but I’m fairly certain they were simply declarative: “Your brother died overnight.” God help me, I was relieved. We didn’t get along. Forty years later I can say that and not feel like a soulless ghoul… almost. I still feel sort of soulless saying it, but it’s what I felt. I can’t lie about it. I can’t change it. It was what it was and is what it is.

I do remember what I said exactly, however: “What will we do with his clothes?”  Now having had a diagnosis of Asperger’s, this response makes sense. I was being very practical about it. I had a question so I asked it. The proper emotion could wait until I could properly process it. I’ve always thought it was sort of funny, in a grim way. I remember asking my mother years ago if she remembered that I had said that. I was shocked she hadn’t. Now I realize that nothing about that time should shock me. The poor woman had just lost her son. Anything she feels or remembers or doesn’t feel or remember is “normal.”

Right after Mom died two years ago this month, Dad and I were talking. He said (roughly quoting here) “She never recovered from that. Never got her spark back.” He was right. She never did. I’m “glad” she’s with him now. It’s got to be a great comfort to her.

Something else happened at that time. I lost my faith. Or, the teachings of the church lost me. That’s actually a better way to describe it, because I do believe in a Supreme Being, deeply. I’m just homeless. A spiritual wanderer. No church. Why? Because Mom (and every other well-meaning Catholic around me) said and kept saying this:

“God wanted him.”

Really? I’m 11 1/2 years old and I’m looking around at everyone crying and Mrs. Murphy doing the dishes and I’m supposed to worship THAT?


Something else happened that I remember like it was yesterday: the coldness of his corpse. To this day I cannot go to a wake without being spooked. Looking back, I probably shouldn’t have gone to the wake. My poor parents couldn’t have known how “literal” my brain was, how painful all the incoming sensations would be to me. They made the right decision, but it echoes. The coldest thing I ever felt was Daniel’s hand in that casket. It was a unique cold, unlike anything else I have ever felt before or since and I don’t ever want to feel it again. That wasn’t my brother. His spirit had flown.

His spirit had flown as surely as my mother’s did two years ago this month. She looked over my left shoulder as she died. Her eyes had been closed, but she opened them for a few seconds, as if to respond, as if to say “I see you (or it). I’m coming. I’m glad to come. I’m scared but I’m not scared…” It seemed like that to me. Who knows if it was.

I do know they are at rest in each other’s company now. And that’s enough.

Roe v. Wade, an Analog Decision.

Would Roe v. Wade have been affirmed if ultrasound had been widely available in 1973? One wonders. This essay at NRO reminds us that that momentous decision was made 15 years prior to the advent of the fetal ultrasound. Roe was decided on “privacy” grounds but one can’t help but wonder. Excerpts from the much longer essay are below.

When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense
By Frederica Mathewes-Green — January 22, 2016
Via National Review Online

At the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, I was a college student — an anti-war, mother-earth, feminist, hippie college student… and volunteering at the feminist “underground newspaper” Off Our Backs. As you’d guess, I was strongly in favor of legalizing abortion. The bumper sticker on my car read, “Don’t labor under a misconception; legalize abortion.”

The first issue of Off Our Backs after the Roe decision included… (an essay asserting that) it didn’t go far enough… because it allowed states to restrict abortion in the third trimester. The Supreme Court should not meddle in what should be decided between the woman and her doctor. She should be able to choose abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

But, at the time, we didn’t have much understanding of what abortion was. We knew nothing of fetal development. We consistently termed the fetus “a blob of tissue,” and that’s just how we pictured it — an undifferentiated mucous-like blob, not recognizable as human or even as alive. It would be another 15 years of so before pregnant couples could show off sonograms of their unborn babies, shocking us with the obvious humanity of the unborn.

We also thought, back then, that few abortions would ever be done. It’s a grim experience, going through an abortion, and we assumed a woman would choose one only as a last resort. We were fighting for that “last resort.” We had no idea how common the procedure would become; today, one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion.

Nor could we have imagined how high abortion numbers would climb. In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 59 million abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big. Twenty years ago, someone told me that, if the names of all those lost babies were inscribed on a wall, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall would have to stretch for 50 miles. It’s 20 years later now, and that wall would have to stretch twice as far. But no names could be written on it; those babies had no names.

We expected that abortion would be rare. What we didn’t realize was that, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.

Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.

A woman who had had an abortion told me, “Everyone around me was saying they would ‘be there for me’ if I had the abortion, but no one said they’d ‘be there for me’ if I had the baby.” For everyone around the pregnant woman, abortion looks like the sensible choice. A woman who determines instead to continue an unplanned pregnancy looks like she’s being foolishly stubborn. It’s like she’s taken up some unreasonable hobby. People think: If she would only go off and do this one thing, everything would be fine.


I changed my opinion on abortion after I read an article in Esquire magazine, way back in 1976. I was home from grad school, flipping through my dad’s copy, and came across an article titled “What I Saw at the Abortion.” The author, Richard Selzer, was a surgeon, and he was in favor of abortion, but he’d never seen one. So he asked a colleague whether, next time, he could go along.

Selzer described seeing the patient, 19 weeks pregnant, lying on her back on the table. (That is unusually late; most abortions are done by the tenth or twelfth week.) The doctor performing the procedure inserted a syringe into the woman’s abdomen and injected her womb with a prostaglandin solution, which would bring on contractions and cause a miscarriage. (This method isn’t used anymore, because too often the baby survived the procedure — chemically burned and disfigured, but clinging to life. Newer methods, including those called “partial birth abortion” and “dismemberment abortion,” more reliably ensure death.)

After injecting the hormone into the patient’s womb, the doctor left the syringe standing upright on her belly. Then, Selzer wrote, “I see something other than what I expected here. . . . It is the hub of the needle that is in the woman’s belly that has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.”

He realized he was seeing the fetus’s desperate fight for life. And as he watched, he saw the movement of the syringe slow down and then stop. The child was dead. Whatever else an unborn child does not have, he has one thing: a will to live. He will fight to defend his life.

The last words in Selzer’s essay are, “Whatever else is said in abortion’s defense, the vision of that other defense [i.e., of the child defending its life] will not vanish from my eyes. And it has happened that you cannot reason with me now. For what can language do against the truth of what I saw?”

The truth of what he saw disturbed me deeply. There I was, anti-war, anti–capital punishment, even vegetarian, and a firm believer that social justice cannot be won at the cost of violence. Well, this sure looked like violence. How had I agreed to make this hideous act the centerpiece of my feminism? How could I think it was wrong to execute homicidal criminals, wrong to shoot enemies in wartime, but all right to kill our own sons and daughters?

For that was another disturbing thought: Abortion means killing not strangers but our own children, our own flesh and blood. No matter who the father, every child aborted is that woman’s own son or daughter, just as much as any child she will ever bear.


Many years ago I wrote something in an essay about abortion, and I was surprised that the line got picked up and frequently quoted. I’ve seen it in both pro-life and pro-choice contexts, so it appears to be something both sides agree on.

I wrote, “No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

Strange, isn’t it, that both pro-choice and pro-life people agree that is true? Abortion is a horrible and harrowing experience. That women choose it so frequently shows how much worse continuing a pregnancy can be. Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.

Nobody wants to have an abortion. And if nobody wants to have an abortion, why are women doing it, 2,800 times a day?


And so we come around to one more March for Life, like the one last year, like the one next year. Protesters understandably focus on the unborn child, because the danger it faces is the most galvanizing aspect of this struggle. …I understand all the reasons why the movement’s prime attention is focused on the unborn. But we can also say that abortion is no bargain for women, either. It’s destructive and tragic.


One day, the tide is going to turn. With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day. But sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. The time is coming when a younger generation will sit in judgment of ours. And they are not obligated to be kind.

— Frederica Mathewes-Green is the author of Real Choices: Listening to Women; Looking for Alternatives to Abortion.