President Barack Obama has nominated, Cornelia Pillard, a radical abortion advocate who believes abstinence education is unconstitutional, for the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a bench from which future Supreme Court Justices are often called.
CNSNews.com is reporting on Pillard, a Georgetown University Law professor, who wrote in a 2007 article that abstinence education promulgates sexual double standards and fosters a world view and behavior that is at odds with equal protection law.
“Retrogressive gender ideology, prescribing chastity and maternity for women while assuming lustfulness and autonomy for men, is at the heart of today’s abstinence-only education movement. In that regard, the abstinence-only approach conflicts with the substantive norms of both equal protection and reproductive justice,” Pillard writes in “Our Other Reproductive Choices: Equality in Sex Education, Contraceptive Access and Work Family Policy.”
“In sum, overt teachings and the pervasive subtext of abstinence-only curricula reflect the expectation that women should and will become mothers, rely on their husbands for financial support, care about their relationships with males more than the males do, have a greater stake in and identification with chastity than men, and do not value the importance of sexual release as highly as men do.”
Therefore, abstinence education is guilty of promulgating sexual double standards and fosters a world view and behavior at odds with U.S. equal protection law.
“Their prescriptions for women and men resonate vividly with the traditional sex roles that were the targets of so many of the early sex equality cases,” Pillard explains. “If it is contrary to equal protection to make even formally neutral governmental decisions based on sex stereotypes, it would seem, a fortiori, unconstitutional to teach those same views in public schools.”
Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association and an expert on abstinence education, was flabbergasted by Pillard’s woefully uninformed view.
“There are politically liberal nominees, but this is beyond that,” Huber told CNS. “She is so extreme that when I was reading this I had to remind myself this was a real person that actually believes the words I’m reading. She believes abstinence education should be a criminal activity.”
Pillard is way off in her analysis of abstinence education, which has no gender bias and explicity encourages both men and women to use sexual restraint.
Even more noteworthy is the fact that the whole purpose of abstinence education, which was begun during World War I, was to eliminate double standards for males and females with regard to sexual behavior.
The fact that Pillard doesn’t know such essential facts about the subject is very concerning, Huber says.
“The concerns are two-fold. This shows she is not very careful in making legal recommendations. It also shows she clearly has an ideological bent that trumps curious judicial review. Both are reasons she should not be confirmed.”
Pillard has also stated publicly that she believes abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” She has also gone so far as to criticize ultra-sound technology, claiming that it puts forth “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being”. To those who oppose the birth control mandate, she accuses them of “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up a hearing yesterday on Pillard’s nomination which is being fast-tracked with the hopes of giving Senators less time to scrutinize her radical background and vote against her.
However, she is still facing full Senate confirmation and Huber is urging all concerned persons to contact their Senator about this very troubling nominee.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com