Ana Maria Archila writes in USA Today (October 1, 2018) about her confrontation of Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging him to vote against Brett Kavanaugh. She said she was following Christine Blasey Ford’s example of telling her story “to protect our country.” She writes, “I asked him how he could live with himself, as a father of daughters, knowing that Kavanaugh allegedly violated a young girl.”
And hence does Ana Maria fail in her mission.
Had she said that she shared her story to encourage all Senators, and the wider public, to be more sensitive to women who are victimized in this way, that would have been honorable, and she could have claimed some measure of success. She got a pulpit, a temporary spotlight, to get her message across, and it seems to have affected the Senator to the point that he asked for the additional FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, which is now moving forward.
But that wasn’t where she stopped. It wasn’t just “for women” or “for victims.” It was against Kavanaugh.
And her approach violated the most basic premise of our justice system: innocent until proven guilty.
Notice her words quoted above. She says the Senator should not be able to live with himself if he votes for Judge Kavanaugh — but not because he committed sexual assault, but because he “allegedly” did so. And that word changes everything.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a bedrock principle of our civilization and of our legal system. It does not mean “innocent until accused” or “innocent until attacked.” It means that even if one is accused or attacked, even by multiple people, he or she is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Lack of commitment to such a principle introduces chaos into society and all its institutions. In the current process regarding Judge Kavanaugh, the Democrats have demonstrated a frightening unwillingness to explicitly embrace and employ this principle.
When Senator Mazie Hirono was asked recently by CNN’s Jake Tapper, “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” she should have answered with a simple and straightforward, “Yes, of course.” But she didn’t.
She went on, instead, to complain about his “ideological” positions, with one featuring prominently. She said, “This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He has a — he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.”
And indeed, Ana Maria Archila’s USA Today column echoes the same, as she writes, “Much of his record… on health care and reproductive justice is an abomination.”
Tucker Carlson stated on his show a couple of weeks ago that everyone in Washington knows that this opposition to Kavanaugh “is all about abortion.” I agree. The Democratic Party has never been as extreme in its pro-abortion position as it currently is, with a policy that allows abortion up until the day of birth, and demands that we pay for it with our tax dollars. The Senate Democrats of the Judiciary Committee constitute a “who’s who” of decades of abortion advocacy. Before Brett Kavanaugh’s name was even announced, the retirement of Justice Kennedy caused the left to erupt into a frenzy over the abortion decision Roe vs. Wade, and that frenzy hasn’t stopped. They know many other of their prized positions are at risk with a shift in the court, but this one always tops the list.
We can and should debate abortion — in the courts, the legislatures, the media, academia, the press, and the wider culture.
But the behavior of the Democrats and their Leftist allies in this case isn’t about debating abortion; it’s about their willingness to destroy people’s careers and reputations, and to destroy basic premises of our American legal system, to preserve their dogmatic allegiance to abortion.
And that has multiple unfortunate consequences, one of which is that the very thing that Ana Maria Archila claims to be doing — that is, advocating for the victims of sexual assault — is lost in the ensuing frenzy. Such victims, suffering all across our country, are not served when abortion advocates use them for the ulterior motive of hijacking a confirmation process, and in the process, destroy a man’s reputation, and throw the presumption of innocence out the window just to hold on to power.
And another very unfortunate consequence is that young men and women throughout our land who may someday be inclined to offer themselves to serve our nation’s judicial system, or in some other form of public service, will be disheartened and discouraged from getting anywhere near such a destructive process.
We in the leadership of the pro-life movement have always claimed that aside from its obvious impact on babies and their families, abortion poisons our entire legal system and indeed our entire culture. With sad and painful evidence, the nation is currently learning that the hard way.