President Barack Obama is pushing the nomination of Nina Pillard to the second most powerful court in the nation, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Pillard is an abortion backer whose nomination will likely face opposition from conservative Republicans in the Senate.
Pillard was nominated this summer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to question Pillard on the many controversial positions she holds on matters of constitutional interpretation. One believe she holds is that there is supposedly a right to an abortion in the Constitution.
Pillard argues that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.”
She has written, “Antiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women’s incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a “vision of the woman’s role” as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection. Renewed attacks on abortion have turned attention to how the Equal Protection Clause, and the right to sex equality more generally, might advance reproductive self-determination.”
The Obama judicial nominee also criticizes anyone opposed to the HHS abortion mandate in Obamacare as “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council responded to her pro-abortion views:
A mother of two, Nina wrote a 2011 paper, “Against the New Maternalism,” which argues that by celebrating motherhood, society is creating a “self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination.” Those ideas bleed into Pillard’s extreme pro-abortion views, which suggest that technology is somehow manipulating Americans to consider the personhood of the unborn. In one of her most jaw-dropping statements, the President’s nominee even criticizes the ultrasound. She believes it manufactures “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”
As crazy and outrageous as her other comments are, this one is a denial of basic biology! She actually rejects modern science on human development because it conflicts with her hard-core ideology. If that doesn’t disqualify someone from the second most prestigious court in America, I’m not sure what does.
Pillard also thinks abstinence education is unconstitutional.
Pillard’s visceral opposition to abstinence education, coupled with her copious misinformation on the subject, calls into question her fitness for the position. Under the banner of “sex equality” she attempts to make a constitutional argument that abstinence education denies equal protection to female students.
According to Pillard, abstinence education rises to the level of constitutional violation due to the fact that it is “designed not only to expose students to ideas, but also to shape student behavior.”*
“The abstinence-only approach is permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards about acceptable male and female sexual behavior and appropriate social roles. Public school teaching of gender stereotypes violates the constitutional bar against sex stereotyping and is vulnerable to equal protection challenge,” she has written.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says it is difficult to exaggerate the extremist views of Cornelia Pillard and her group is calling on the Senate to reject the nominee.
Huber tells LifeNews that Pillard blatantly distorts the manner in which abstinence programs share information and empower health behaviors and mischaracterizes the approach in her writings.
“Her spurious charge ignores the fact that abstinence education programs seek optimal heath outcomes for all students – male and female. She maligns an approach that explicitly advocates a single sexual standard, prides itself in empowering young men and women, and that promotes health and well being of the individual and society in general,” Huber said. “NAEA urges Congress and common-sense citizens to vigorously oppose a nominee who voices a total disregard for the facts about abstinence education and shows a frightening desire to aggressively use the Constitution to promote her radical ideological views.”
