An unpopular bravery

11
1163

You hear a lot of media types extolling the “bravery” of people who come out as LGBTQ or strongly voice their defense of abortion or some other Leftist social policy.

But, in fact, those people can hardly be considered brave because they are invariably celebrated by the media and politicians, to the point where they sometimes make millions of dollars for proclaiming their sexual proclivity or newly discovered gender identity.

Dylan Mulvaney is just one example of this phenomenon. He has made his fortune by claiming to be a “girl” about a year ago and then proceeding to act and dress like a caricature of a prepubescent schoolgirl in his many social media posts.

It’s a little creepy to me, but he is nonetheless grandly celebrated, to the point where he was able to meet President Biden in the White House to whine about his status as a victim. The irony is rich.

Contrast this treatment with how conservative Supreme Court Justices are treated. For having the temerity to find fault with the unconstitutional reasoning of Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion issue to the states, they have been subjected to illegal protests at their homes and an assassination attempt. The Dobbs decision itself was leaked for the express purpose of intimidating the conservatives on the Court to back down.

Not only did the Department of Justice not enforce the clearly-written statute that protects Justices and all federal judges from harassment and intimidation, but you had prominent Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer issuing threatening statements like “you will reap the whirlwind” and “won’t know what hit you.”

Please keep in mind that the Justices were not ruling on the legality or morality of abortion, but only on the proper constitutional way to handle the issue. As a result, some states have restricted abortion, but some have made it available without restraint for all 9 months of pregnancy. For their measured, appropriate legal reasoning, the conservative Justices have been demonized by the dominant powers in our country.

Threats to their persons and homes weren’t the end, though. Prominent Democrats have also openly questioned the very legitimacy of the Court, threatened to pack it with additional Justices, and are currently engaged in a campaign to impeach Justices Thomas and Gorsuch for inconsequential and spurious violations of the Court’s code of ethics. Nevermind that these same people couldn’t care less about the leak of the Dobbs decision, which was a truly serious violation of those codes and a bald-faced effort of intimidation.

The Left simply wasn’t used to losing when it came to Supreme Court decisions, having systematically dismantled various traditional elements of American culture over the past 5 decades with a winning streak that would be envied by the greatest of sports dynasties.

But once they lost one significant decision, they were utterly incapable of doing what conservatives have done, which is to accept the court rulings and work through the system to try and fight them fair and square. You never saw pro-lifers harassing liberal Justices when they ruled in favor of decisions like Roe or subsequent ones that upheld Roe; nor did you see Republican politicians questioning the legitimacy and integrity of liberal Justices or the Court. No. We played by the rules and finally won after 50 years of patiently waiting and hoping.

(I know that some of you will point out that a few anti-abortion activists have resorted to violence and even murder; those acts were condemned by the vast majority of pro-life activists and politicians and constituted an unfortunate and tragic aberration in what has otherwise been an extremely peaceful movement. Contrast this with the tacit support or silence when it comes to the current intimidation aimed at the Court on the part of Democrats and the press.)

There is very little upside in general to fighting for traditional issues of life and sexuality. It does not win you likes on social media, or gain you celebration by major brands, or win you spots on talk shows and fancy galas in New York.

Often, you lose friends, your job, and sometimes the federal government comes after you with guns to intimidate you into silence, as what happened with pro-life activist Matt Rourk (all charges against him were dropped for a second time, but not before he and his family felt the true measure of Biden’s disdain for his views).

Which brings me to a friend of mine, whose teenage daughter has exhibited true bravery and courage in the face of persecution from friends, teachers, and administrators for her pro-life views. This young woman, whom I will name “Jane,” found out that one of her friends had become pregnant.

While most people were telling her to get an abortion, Jane counseled the opposite and offered to support her through the experience. For this — for standing up for the unborn child — Jane was heavily criticized by “friends” and classmates. Teachers, whom she thought to be wonderful, supportive people, turned on her and attacked her for standing up for her beliefs.

The left talks about how we must respect people’s beliefs and “lived experiences.” They go so far as to say that if someone believes they are a different gender, race, or even species, we must respect that. But, the hypocrisy and logical incoherence of their views are revealed when the person in question has views they don’t agree with.

Then it is okay to harass, intimidate, and even commit acts of violence against them, as seems to be the case with the recent Nashville school shootings.

Jane has had to endure the betrayal of friends and teachers in order to stand up for her passionately held belief that it is never okay to kill an innocent human life, especially one in the womb, even if the circumstances are challenging and gut-wrenching.

Rather than telling her pregnant friend to just “end it,” Jane has affirmed the beauty of her friend and the child in her womb and offered to walk with her through the process of pregnancy and childbirth.

That is true courage. Jane understands the difficult but imperative idea that truth is truth no matter how many people may oppose it, and is paying the price for her principled stand in a way that no leftist ideologue will ever have to, even as they cry crocodile tears and proclaim their victim status amidst the fawning adoration of corporations, politicians, government officials, and the media.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.

11 COMMENTS

  1. Hi Trey
    Nice opinion and I think truthful.
    When I box up all of our issues in society today it’s hard to not label it as…a loss of personal direction in the individual.
    The worst in society is elevated to the highest levels and narcissus individuals influence the population.
    It can be found in all realms of politics, social media and popular culture.
    The most damaging individuals are like “ticks on a dog’s ear, getting a free ride and dropping off when they are full”.

  2. It’s no use talking to pro-lifers about abortion; they can’t face the truth that their views are not about saving babies at all but rather about controlling women’s bodies. Abortion was common in the USA before the civil war, but better availability of birth control and moves toward giving women more self-determination meant families began having less children — and white men became fearful that we were committing “race suicide,” so they began agitating for a ban on abortions.

    Because prenatal care and abortion had been mainly the purview of midwives, and doctors (all of whom were male of course) wanted to keep women out of the medical business, the AMA also began to campaign for a ban on abortion. It’s clear at the heart of every move to stop abortion in this country has been the desire of men to control the bodies of women as a commodity. Trey may not want to think of himself as a man motivated by that bleak desire, but there’s no other way to account for it. He clearly is not so pro-life that he is providing for all the abused, neglected, or abandoned children in Georgia in an attempt to make sure all are allowed to be born, so we can discount the idea that he wants to save the children. What other motivation could he have?

    As for his lauding the courage of Jane, the young woman who is attempting to convince her friend to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term … what is brave about Jane? She is not going to have to risk her life to bring an unwanted baby into the world, and although Trey says Jane is willing to “walk through” the process with her friend, is she willing to then provide a good quality of life for the child and provide for her friend to finish school and go on to pursue a career? If not, then Jane is not being brave at all. She is just trying to tell her friend what to do with her own body. Why is this Jane’s business? And as Wildcat notes above, if Jane is telling the truth that her teacher has ostracized and denigrated her for her pro-life opinion, the school needs to be aware of it and the teacher needs to be disciplined. The way conservatives love to pretend to be persecuted, the fact that we haven’t already heard about Jane’s horrible ordeal on the TV news makes me believe we’re not getting the full picture and she’s not a real portrait in courage.

    Now in case anyone here thinks I am being hateful about this … Not my intention. I am snippy by nature, but I do believe that love is the answer. It’s just that love doesn’t come along and tell women what they can or can’t do with their own bodies. Love is patient and kind, the good book tells us, and I daresay love doesn’t insert itself into a woman’s medical care choices, nor, for that matter, into anyone else’s gender identity either. Suppose the rest of us follow love’s example?

    • Jax – Pro-life IS 100% about saving babies, who have as much of the right to life as you do.

      You’re saying that millions of people “want to control women’s bodies”, but ironically, ONLY when it involves the destruction of a baby? If the goal really was control, wouldn’t that at least extend to tummy tucks and backside lifts?

      It’s a human life. How does your “love” philosophy square with 620,000 + intentional deaths of babies in the US (CDC data) each year? That’s 10x the number of gun-related deaths.

  3. I will never understand how the party of small government has seamlessly convinced so many folks that MORE government is needed to solve made up problems.

    Roe v. Wade WAS a compromise between the opposing views on the abortion issue. Precedence USED to mean something in the Supreme Court. Yet, here we are. The very idea that the government has not interjected themselves back into the healthcare decisions of general public is the opposite of conservative values. Leave people alone, this is a free country. Church and State are separate. If your religion bans abortions, that is fine! Don’t have an abortion. There is no reason to bring the government into this, we are not and never have been a Christian nation, in the eyes of the law. Folks used to complain “OMG, could you imagine if we had Sharia law like in some places in the middle east!? They stone people to death for some crimes” Yet, here we are, imposing religious views onto the general population.

    With respect to the trans community, what happened to “Love Thy Neighbor”. Anyone Christian person reading this, I beg you to talk to your pastor. If they think hating someone for who God created them to be is an OK thing to do, well maybe consider a new church. Trey misgenders Dylan, for what reason? It’s just rude.

    • Annoyed – Precedent is a strong legal guide but not irreversible, as many court cases have shown. Besides, the precedent ahead of Roe v Wade is that all states had banned abortions well before 1900. Only New York, Hawaii, Washington and Alaska had lifted bans between 1970 and 1973, just prior to Roe.

      So if you are outraged by the over-turning of precedent, your anger should be directed at the Roe decision itself, shouldn’t it?

      One does not need to be religious to have a conscience that rejects killing babies. It’s a human with a right to live on.

      In the same way, one does not need to be religious to reject the idea that a man can think his way into being a woman, or that anyone is obligated to pay for, play along with or “celebrate” their delusion. This was common sense, what, two weeks ago?

      If an adult decides to pay for getting their parts removed, and wants to live that way – – you do you. Not something I support or would do, but no “hate” involved.

      Most people draw the line where the trans agenda negatively impacts innocent others: children getting groomed and indoctrinated, daughters having to share locker rooms and compete against biological men, wives and mothers having to worry about using bathrooms and store changing rooms with men, women housed with men in prisons, etc.

    • Annoyed – Precedent is a strong legal guide but it is reversible, as many court cases have shown. Besides, the precedent ahead of Roe v Wade is that all states had banned abortions well before 1900. Only New York, Hawaii, Washington and Alaska had lifted bans between 1970 and 1973, just prior to Roe.

      So if you are outraged by the over-turning of precedent, your anger should be directed at the Roe decision, shouldn’t it?

      One does not need to be religious to have a conscience that rejects killing babies. It’s a human with a right to live on.

      In the same way, one does not need to be religious to reject the idea that a man can think his way into being a woman, or that anyone is obligated to pay for, play along with or “celebrate” their delusion. This was common sense, what, two weeks ago?

      If an adult decides to pay for getting their parts removed, and wants to live that way – – well, you do you. Not something I would support or do, but no “hate” involved.

      Most people draw the line where the trans agenda negatively impacts innocent others: children getting groomed and indoctrinated in sexuality, daughters having to share locker rooms and compete in sports against biological men, wives and mothers having to worry about men in their bathrooms and store changing rooms, women housed with men in prisons, etc.

    • Annoyed – Precedent is a strong legal guide but it is reversible, as many court cases have shown. Besides, the precedent ahead of Roe v Wade is that all states had banned abortions well before 1900. Only New York, Hawaii, Washington and Alaska had lifted bans between 1970 and 1973, just prior to Roe.

      So if you are outraged by the over-turning of precedent, your anger should be directed at the Roe decision itself, shouldn’t it?

      One does not need to be religious to have a conscience that rejects killing babies. It’s a human with a right to live on.

      In the same way, one does not need to be religious to reject the idea that a man can think his way into being a woman, or that anyone is obligated to pay for, play along with or “celebrate” their delusion. This was common sense, what, two weeks ago?

      If an adult decides to pay for getting their parts removed, and wants to live that way – – well, you do you. Not something I would support or do, but no “hate” involved.

      Most people draw the line where the trans agenda negatively impacts innocent others: children getting groomed and indoctrinated in sexuality, daughters having to share locker rooms and compete in sports against biological men, wives and mothers having to worry about men in their bathrooms and store changing rooms, women housed with men in prisons, etc.

  4. I agree with Mr. Hoffman that endangering others with threats, intimidation, and violence has no place in civil society. His examples differ in egregiousness, but are all out of line.

    Mr. Hoffman misstates that these insults are predominantly the actions of one end of the ideological spectrum, but that excuses no one. Indeed, storming the Capitol in an attempt to assassinate the Vice President and overturn the 2020 presidential election is but one of the many instances of egregious violence from the right. Violence and threats from the Proud Boys are no less out of bounds than are the same from Antifa.

    This bi-polar misbehavior is clear to anyone who possesses an ounce of objectivity. It makes me wonder if Mr. Hoffman is a true believer in this partisan rhetoric and thus a simpleton, or if he is knowingly attempting to stir up his partisan base for attention (like MTG).

  5. As a retired public school teacher (28 years; high school) I simply do not believe that “Jane’s” teachers turned on her, attacked her and betrayed her. Where did Jane go to school? Perhaps, instead of worrying so much about LBGTQ people you need to concentrate your efforts on the horrible school that your friend’s daughter attends. That school is f-ed up. Big time.

    • I agree with you I went to school in the late 70’s early 80’s and there were girls that got abortions and girls who gave birth..No one was pulling the bully card..My sister was in school in the 90’s and it was the same way..Geez why not invent a problem that doesn’t happen.