Michelle Wolf exposes the true, despicable agenda of the abortion industry

The comments directed toward Sarah Sanders received the widest coverage, but what was the most shocking and abhorrent about the monologue was Wolf joking — joking — about abortion.

As Ben Shapiro tweeted:

In part, Wolf said on abortion, “Don’t knock it till you try it — and when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you’ve got to get that baby out of there. And yeah, sure, you can groan all you want. I know a lot of you are very anti-abortion. You know, unless it’s the one you got for your secret mistress.”

Are we really so depraved and desensitized as a culture that we are expected to laugh about “trying” abortion? As if abortion is equivalent to Saturday brunch and hey, if you didn’t like the eggs Benedict, there’s always next weekend. Have a mimosa, chill, and try abortion for fun, girls. Generally, if someone says “don’t knock it till you try it,” it’s something they enjoy and are encouraging you to try to see if you enjoy it too.

Liberals advocated for the Bill Clinton era tagline of “safe, legal, and rare” abortions, but in recent years with the rise of militant feminism, women’s marches, and the idea that pregnancy is merely a “treatable” health condition, abortion activists are now making it sound equivalent to a spa treatment. Definitely try the seaweed wrap, ladies. Sounds weird, but don’t knock it till you try it.

Efforts to “de-stigmatize” abortion have generated Twitter hashtags celebrating abortion, as if pregnancy status provides an array of options, all equally appropriate to choose from depending on the mood you’re in. A video from a rally protesting Ireland’s proposed abortion legalization legislation shows a female prostitute from The Sex Worker’s Alliance of Ireland chanting “Hoes need abortions!” while young girls smirk and join in, fists raised.

This kind of callous rhetoric is far beyond the pale. Every human pregnancy from conception is scientifically undeniably a human being. The ethical and moral argument is undeniable. But Wolf’s comments and the progressive liberal agenda simply reinforce that liberals will not be persuaded by any factual, moral, or ethical appeal. They want abortions under any circumstances, even just to try one for the heck of it.

Liberals are so smugly assured of their abortions on demand, they’re not even trying to pretend “safe, legal, and rare” anymore. They still believe that since some abortions were legalized via Roe v. Wade in 1973, the legal argument extension to all abortions is ironclad. It’s “super precedent,” according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., during Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing last year, and a “super-duper precedent” according to then-Sen. Arlen Specter in 2005. Obviously, there is no such thing as super precedent, and even our supreme law of the land, the Constitution, has a process by which it may be amended.

So if the collective liberal conscience has been so darkly seared as to want to kill a baby merely to try it out and laugh at the prospect of doing so, clearly conservatives cannot simply appeal to basic morality and ethics of the dignity of human life and its inherent value. Thus, we must also offer the best legal argument.

Liberals will attack the pro-life argument by shrouding abortion within the pretense of choice as a “right,” similar to free speech or any other fundamental right protected by the Constitution. But Roe and its progeny didn’t actually hold that abortion itself is a right. The right to privacy was at issue, and the Supreme Court has unconstitutionally extended that right to cover some abortions at some stages of a pregnancy. The court has thus been consistently dealing with balancing the interests of privacy versus the state’s interest in protecting viable human life.

But this kind of balancing test is the fundamental flaw of abortion jurisprudence rationale. My right to privacy doesn’t extend to everything I may want to choose. Even within the notably sacrosanct area of the home, police can still be called and a person still arrested for if the person chooses to commit domestic abuse because assault is a separate crime regardless of the location and circumstances. A person can’t claim “privacy” for beating a spouse. They may be able to claim self-defense or some other justification, but the right to privacy isn’t an affirmative defense.

So why should a woman, under the auspices of “privacy,” be able to choose abortion in an otherwise healthy and normal pregnancy? Because that’s really what feminists like Wolf are talking about: healthy babies and normal pregnancies. They’re not putting up a good faith debate about the vary rare and difficult ethical dilemmas of life of the mother or cases of rape and incest. They’re laughing about trying out abortion for fun.

Abortion on demand is defined as medical intervention that intends to cause the death of a human being. The right to privacy should not extend to woman choosing to end a human life recreationally.

That should be manifestly obvious. Human life should be cherished and human death should be grieved and never, ever laughed at and especially never chosen merely to try it. Feminists like Wolf undermine their own argument and show the true, despicable agenda of the abortion industry.

Jenna Ellis (@jennaellisorg) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is an attorney, a fellow at the Centennial Institute, a radio show host in Denver, Colo., and the author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.