Pro-abortion Democrat accuses post-abortive woman of having a weak personality

A pro-abortion Democrat accused a pro-life politician of having a weak personality because she turned to alcohol, drugs, and thoughts of suicide after she had two abortions.

The verbal dust-up occurred between Republican Texas State Representative-elect Molly White and State Rep. Dawnna Dukes, a Democrat, during a September 20 abortion debate, with Dukes revealing for the first time publicly that she, too, has had an abortion.

White, who won the March Republican primary for House District 55, was taking part in the Texas Tribune’s “Women’s Health Debate” panel, where her introduction included that she was post-abortive and that her experience with two abortions had led her to drug and alcohol use, suicidal thoughts, and other health challenges.

The panel began with on Texas House Bill 2 (HB2), which bans abortion after 20 weeks, requires abortionists to have admitting privileges within 30 miles of their facility and requires that abortion facilities meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ACS).

White’s fellow panelist Dukes, her soon-to-be colleague in the Texas legislature, attempted to debunk the idea that abortion has any negative effects on a woman’s life, taking personal shots at White in the process during the panel, which was audio recorded by the Tribune.

“It is a personality type that would turn to using drugs and alcohol,” Dukes said, “not the procedure that makes one do that.”

“And I know for a fact that one who has an abortion does not have alcohol and drug-related issues,” she said. “That is a personality type that should have gotten some psychological treatment.”

White took issue with Dukes’ statements equating post-abortive conditions with personality disorders, saying unless one has had an abortion they shouldn’t tell a post-abortive woman what she feels.

“OK, then, fine,” Dukes declared. “To the world: I had an abortion. And I’m not a drug addict, and I’m not an alcoholic.”

White defended herself, saying, “I’m not a drug addict, and I’m not an alcoholic. But I don’t live in denial, either.”

White said the discussion should either be about abortion or women’s health, but the two should be separated, because abortion is not about women’s health. “A safe abortion is women’s health,” Dukes replied.

After White recounted how she was lied to about fetal development before her first abortion, Dukes continued to make it personal, replying, “Well, you did it twice. You should have done your research.”

White, who is the founder and U.S. director of Women for Life International and a worldwide speaker on the subject of abortion, told LifeSiteNews that she recognized Dukes as post-abortive prior to Dukes’ confirming it because of how hard, defensive, and angry Dukes was.

“I used to be that way,” White said. “I can pick them out of a crowd, because I walked in their shoes.”

White said that aside from trying to insult her by saying she had a weak personality, Dukes said outlandish things that White couldn’t rebut them, because she was sensitive to exposing Dukes' post-abortive status.

“I refrained from challenging her on a personal level,” she told LifeSiteNews.

White approached Dukes after the panel and spoke of burying the hatchet and working together in the Texas statehouse. White told LifeSiteNews their conversation was civil.

White also reached out to Dukes last week in the hopes of talking more with her, but has not heard back from her.

She said she wants to carry the post-abortion reconciliation message after taking office because, she said, Dukes is not the only post-abortive woman serving in the Texas legislature.

“I’m really hoping God will use me as an instrument of healing,” White told LifeSiteNews.

I don't mean this to be offensive, nor provocative. Thanks for asking, my FRiend.

Thanks for your post, it was very insightful.

I certainly believe that God does know the hour of our death and He has known it from the moment of Creation and that means that He has always known that millions would be murdered in the womb. He doesn't condone it, but because He gave man free will He allows it. I don't believe the Catholic and Reformed beliefs differ on this.

I had never really considered the Reformed position that some of the unborn might not be among the elect, but it is certainly true that some of these babies would not have been saved had they lived.

Though I am certainly not a theologian, my personal view is that the aborted babies are martyrs. Murder is certainly sin and as such a tool of Satan. And abortion is the most evil form of murder as it is the only method in which the victim lacks any mean at all of self-defense. The motive for the murder of these children is not anything they have done, it is not based upon anything the children believe, they are being murdered simply because they exist. I believe that Satan has entered the abortionists in the same manner he entered Judas Iscariot and that the abortionists are serving Satan just as Judas did. If this is the case, and I realize I may be incorrect, these babies are all martyrs who have been baptized in blood and are with Christ in Heaven.

"I certainly believe that God does know the hour of our death and He has known it from the moment of Creation and that means that He has always known that millions would be murdered in the womb. He doesn't condone it, but because He gave man free will He allows it. I don't believe the Catholic and Reformed beliefs differ on this."

You have brought up several interesting points. The first, the recognition of God's omniscience, is well-described throughout the Scriptures. You acknowledge that, as do I.

The second point you make, that God does not "condone it, but because He gave man free will He allows it." is worth exploring. Part of this statement is indeed biblical, part of it is not. God certainly does not "condone" our evil at any level. But, with respect to "free will", we may be a ways apart. The classic Reformed position, and I believe the Catholic position, are fairly close on this. They both align with Augustine against Pelagian, but operate in a sort of semi-Pelagian view. That is, in reality, they both hold that there is, in fact, free will. I have for some time puzzled how this position can be sustained, but you are right that the Catholic and Reformed (capital R) views agree.

However, I would make it clear here, apparently I do not hold a Reformed position on this matter. My (r)eformed position is that there is no such thing as "free will". I cannot find it in the Scriptures, but rather find the exact opposite. Proverbs 21:1 has Solomon saying that God controls his heart like a little "channel of water", turning it wherever He wishes. Dozens of other passages have God "putting" this or that into the heart of men/women to do certain things. Even the roll of a die is controlled by God, so evidently "randomness" is an illusion.

All of this operates to convince me that the Scriptures (certainly not human logic, philosophy, nor modern thought) teaches God is managing every detail of every being at every moment. The remarks, such as, "Adam, where are you?" are for the effect on us humans. God always knows all, because He is managing all.

Likely this will cause the rebuttal, "Well, you are saying that God is responsible for sin then." If one would mean, therefore He is going to hold Himself guilty, this is nonsense. But, did He originate sin? Absolutely. Creation Ex Nihilo implies there was nothing before God, so (John 1:1ff) all things have been made by Him and for Him. All things. Even Satan.

And, recall, Luke tells us in Acts 2:23ff that the most despicable sin of all, the execution of the Prince of Holiness, the Lord of All, the Messiah of Israel was arranged by the "...predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" Who used men to nail Him to the cross. Was the guilt ours? Absolutely. Was the management His? Absolutely. As Paul writes in Rom. 9, I may think this is unfair...but that is not for me to determine. The Potter can do anything He wishes with His clay.

I certainly agree with you that Satan was used to energize the reprehensible abortionists who murder babies in (and now out) of the womb. They will suffer greatly for this, unless God grants them repentance (II Tim 2:24ff) and causes them to escape the "...snare of the devil..." But, even David the rapist and murderer was among God's elect, so I withhold judgment as to whether they are salvageable.

Even if you do take this position, the net result is the same in that the ongoing slaughter of innocent babies continues with the foreknowledge of God.

Certainly some of the abortionists will repent and some have already, but I also believe that a great many of them carry out their carnage with the full understanding that they are doing it for Satan.

"Certainly some of the abortionists will repent and some have already, but I also believe that a great many of them carry out their carnage with the full understanding that they are doing it for Satan."

Yes, I agree. And, the effort to stop abortionists is not in any way "fighting against God" (as I am often accused of saying) even though He is still in control. He has called us to speak against evil, promote the good. For this, I am grateful to Catholics who speak/act against the travesty of infanticide. Hopefully, the next President has a more biblically based world view than the man in the WH does now. From his promotion of homosexuality, his disdain for one man/one woman marriage, his respect for Islam, his promotion of all things unseemly, even the promotion of racism, one wonders how he could possibly claim to be a Christian.

There is one major difference between Hillary and Obama.

Obama is a Marxist who is totally committed to the cause, regardless of the personal consequences.

Hillary is also a Marxist, but personal glory is more important than the cause and she will happily abandon any cause to preserve her reputation.

Hillary is A LOT more intelligent than Obama. Hillary knew exactly what was going on in Benghazi and sought to distance herself as much as possible and create scapegoats in her path. Obama likely didn't have a clue what was going on and to this day I don't think he really understands what happened.

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.