Vanity Fair Editor Fran Lebowitz Wants “Retroactive Abortions” for Mike Pence and Pro-Lifers

Vanity Fair magazine just ended its third annual “New Establishment Summit” in San Francisco, a three-day conclave bringing together “titans of technology, politics, business, media and the arts for inspiring conversations on the issues and innovations shaping the future.”

More accurately, what the magazine’s predominantly liberal readership would deem “inspiring.” At least one of those conversations, between New York magazine writer Frank Rich and purported humorist/Vanity Fair contributing editor Fran Lebowitz, hardly qualifies.

Their discussion turned inevitably to the presidential campaign and Lebowitz offered this on how she “knew Trump wouldn’t win” long before the pesky election that actually decides it —

I just knew there were not quite enough morons. There are just a few too few morons for that to happen.

“Just a few too few” in lieu of “just a few” — and this from a person with the job title of “editor.” Hold on, it gets worse. Here’s Lebowitz’s take on Trump’s “image” –

He’s a poor person’s idea of a rich person. They see him. They think, ‘If I were rich, I’d have a fabulous tie like that. Why are my ties not made of 400 acres of polyester?’ All that stuff he shows you in his house — the gold faucets — if you won the lottery, that’s what you’d buy.

But the real gem came when Lebowitz was asked about “anti-abortion advocates, like Mike Pence” —

[They] are the perfect advertisements for abortion. There should be retroactive abortions.

Yes, Lebowitz, a professional curmudgeon, is being deliberately provocative. But she reveals more than intended and what comes through is repellent.

First of all, it’s hard to believe Lebowitz is sincere in stating that prominent politicians who oppose the killing of unborn babies are “perfect advertisements” for abortion — as opposed to, for example, the woman whose life is threatened by her pregnancy? Wouldn’t she make a better, uh, “ad” for abortion, for those inclined to think along these lines, as opposed to one merely featuring a politician Lebowitz abhors?

Lebowitz says this about Pence in a way she never would about Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, the only difference being that Richards shares Lebowitz’s dogmatic opinion on abortion. Hence, Richards is worthy of life while Pence isn’t. Lebowitz is not wishing Pence dead but the next closest thing, which is saying he should never have been born due a deadly medical intervention while in utero.

What’s most comical about Lebowitz’s remarks, though not in the way she intends, is how cliched they are, especially considering her saying them amid this glittering colloquium filled with “titans” of media, tech, biz and the arts … abortion foes are the very reason we need abortion! It would be a stretch to suggest Lebowitz is only a degree separated from wanting political opponents herded into boxcars, but she’s close enough to look over your shoulder. It’s not the unborn Pence who Lebowitz wants aborted, it’s him.

So much for Lebowitz and her shallow, "provocative" comments.

It's past time that citizens--Catholic, Protestant, and others who understand their Constitution, with its foundations in Creator-endowed rights and liberty--speak out to defend against this outright assault from Clinton's campaign and her entire "progressive" movement whose ideology makes population control the centerprise of their coercive agenda.

Understanding the ideology, and all that it incorporates, sheds light on the grave threats to freedom for individuals.

Until now, there has been a strange silence on the subject of her absolute insistence on promoting "destroying" of human life in the womb. Does no one ask the question, "Why is abortion, even late-term, the most important item on the agenda of a woman who claims to speak for the children?"

On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.

In America, our constitutional protections rest on the Founders' premise that each and all individuals are "endowed by their Creator" with the unalienable right to both life and the liberty to enjoy it, or, in their words, "the pursuit of happiness."

The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.

"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.

When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?

That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.

In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.

Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?

Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Far Left's, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.

Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a late-1800's essay which helps to explain the absolute, unbending positions "progressives" hold on what that writer called "population control" and its necessity to "socialism"--the essential position being that without such mechanisms, socialism cannot work in a society.

There is an oft-overlooked imperative for the Democrat Party's hard stand on abortion, as declared in the first paragraph of a late-1800's analysis of "The Impracticability of Socialism." In that paragraph, the writer's point seems to be that under Socialism, ordinary human population growth cannot be economically supported.

The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

With Hillary, isn't this the choice we must make--a path to tyranny or a possible path back to freedom in America?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.