May 16 2019

Pro-lifers OK with Alyssa Milano’s Sex Strike for Women Who Don’t Want Kids

In a tweet sent out on the afternoon of May 11, abortion activist and erstwhile actress Alyssa Milano sent the…

In a tweet sent out on the afternoon of May 11, abortion activist and erstwhile actress Alyssa Milano sent the entire pro-life movement into side-splitting gales of laughter with her new strategy for battling the conveyor belt of anti-abortion legislation that has been passing across the United States this year: a “sex strike” calling for women to cease having sex “until we get bodily autonomy back.”

To summarize: In order to punish the pro-life movement for their recent legislative successes, Milano is suggesting that pro-abortion women stop having sex because sex makes babies, and if you can’t get abortions, you can’t abort those babies, so it is better not to have sex in the first place.

And that’s not just my hot take, either — that’s what Milano said: “Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy.”

I’m not the first columnist to point out that this is sort of what pro-lifers have been saying all along: sex makes babies. If you engage in the act of reproduction, you should know that there is a chance that you will get pregnant.

Once that child exists, she has a right to life, and you do not have the right to kill her simply because you didn’t realize that just because you call it “recreational sex,” that doesn’t mean you aren’t using your “reproductive organs.” In other words, Milano’s sex strike might just be a solution we can all get on board with.

Milano probably did not expect the wave of enthusiastic support from pro-lifers, who would be thrilled if people who are not ready to have babies would stop engaging in baby-making activities, thereby drastically reducing the number of babies being aborted.

She presumably did not predict the rather angry reaction from a diverse crowd of abortion-supporters, either, who were understandably chuffed that one of their own was suggesting they take responsibility for their actions and scale back the very activities they are happy to kill for.

The dual reactions to Milano’s proposal — good-humored support from the pro-lifers, angry rejection from most of the abortion-supporters — sums up the chasm between the two Americas.

On one side are people who believe that pre-born children are valuable and worth both defending and sacrificing for.

On the other are those who believe that the immense bloody heaps of shattered sons and daughters we have cruelly crushed since 1973 are a price worth paying for sexual liberation. Milano’s modest proposal, however unintentionally, exposed that rather starkly.

It is true that many abortion-supporters do not see it that way. The mainstream media have been running a frenzied damage control campaign against the proliferation of pro-life laws, attempting to create absurd and hideous hypothetical scenarios in order to recast the defenders of feticide as the paragons of compassion while smearing those seeking to protect the little ones as patriarchal persecutors of women.

They have been claiming, for example, that Georgia’s new heartbeat bill could jail women or provoke law enforcement to investigate miscarriages. In reality, OCGA 16-5-80 actually prohibits prosecuting any woman whose child dies while in utero.

But the media and the abortion activists genuinely do not care about the facts. Truth is always the first casualty in the war against innocent children, and we should not expect people who coldly greet the news that some children are born alive during botched abortion attempts and weakly scream and fight for life. They are, after all, perfectly willing to defend the practice of twisting the heads off living babies. (Read More)