Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court predictably enraged the abortion mob. Anti-Life activists fear nothing more than another strong Constitutionalist justice on the Supreme Court. Such a justice could be the deciding vote in a decision on a case challenging the unsound Roe v. Wade decision that legalized elective abortion in all 50 states.
Given the appalling treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing, no one should be surprised to see the vitriolic attacks already being lodged at Barrett. Unfortunately, the attacks have not even been constrained to Barrett; left-wing radicals have launched attacks in the media on her children.
Barrett is the mother of seven children, two of whom were born in Haiti and adopted. Before President Trump made the official announcement of Barrett’s nomination, Democrat operatives had already begun disparaging Barrett, claiming that Barrett and her husband should be investigated for illegally adopting their children.
These baseless claims intensified with one activist accusing Barrett, who is white, of racism because she adopted two Black children. In response, one journalist described the dire conditions of poverty in parts of Haiti and the on-going practice of child slavery when desperate mothers sell their children to survive. In the face of these harsh realities, activist Ibram X. Kendi took issue with the fact that Barrett is white. Kendi, ironically the author of “How to Be an Anti-Racist,” sent a tweet questioning Barrett’s motives for adopting and implying that the adoption may indicate her racism.
Last week, Kendi wrote, “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”
Even enthusiastic fans of Kendi questioned his pronouncement with one Kendi follower writing that “this tweet is both harsh and unfair. It’s one thing to offer a critique of her policies, it’s another to question love for her children.”
One Twitter user summed up Kendi’s view noting that he was essentially saying, “People who save orphaned children are bad if their skin tone doesn’t match.”
Another person pointed out that the adoption likely did not have any racial motivation. He wrote that “it was for a better life for them,” adding “I’m adopted and know first hand.”
Barrett has spoken publicly about her family’s decision to adopt their son John Peter. Barrett and her husband had been in the process of trying to adopt John Peter for years but some of their paperwork was on hold. However, following the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, their paperwork was processed rapidly and they received a phone call asking if they were ready to adopt John Peter.
After the family began preparing to welcome John Peter, who likely came with serious medical and emotional needs given the trauma he experienced, Barrett had the first indication that she was pregnant. She said, “Turned out our daughter Juliet was on the way, and we had to make the decision — my husband was on the phone with the adoption agency trying to figure out the details of going to pick up John Peter in Orlando, and I said, ‘Hey guess what? I’m going to have a baby in September.”
When contemplating what to do next, Barrett said, “I threw my coat on… I walked up to the cemetery on campus and I just sat down on one of the benches and I just thought, ‘Ok, well, if life’s really hard, at least it’s short. But I thought, what greater thing can you do than raise children? That’s where you have your greatest impact on the world.”
She continued, “Jesse was in Florida within a few days bringing Peter home. It’s a very full life, but a very wonderful one.”
One of the tired claims regularly trotted out by the abortion mob is that Pro-Lifers are not really Pro-Life but only “pro-birth.” Despite the many times this has been debunked, abortion activists are convinced that Pro-Lifers will not offer compassionate help to mothers in crisis and children in difficult circumstances. Yet, when people do defend the most vulnerable and adopt children, that too is considered wrong by the abortion mob.
The truth is that the abortion mob is not concerned with the welfare of children, as they so often claim. The abortion mob is concerned only with defending the indefensible: the killing of innocent babies in the womb.
