Tommy Mann

The Senate will vote this week on President Obama’s appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Members of the pro-life community have labeled this nominee “the most liberal judicial appointment ever.” Ms. Pillard is staunchly pro-abortion and anti-abstinence education, and she is close to receiving a lifetime job on the second most powerful bench in the world. Here are some of her more radical comments: Nina Pillard seems to hate the idea of pregnancy itself, as she has suggested that pregnancy can make women “a class of presumptive breeders rather than reliable breadwinners and citizens.” She said that people who are “anti-choice” (pro-life) are guilty of “sex discrimination.” She maintains that abortion should be legal because the Constitution “declares our liberty to protect our own life and health.” That is a horrible understanding of the Constitution, which is why she does not need the power to interpret the Constitution as a judge. That document never grants...

In the past I have made references to Planned Parenthood’s founder, the racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger. I have written about how she was inspired by Darwin to see to it that people who were unfit to produce quality “stock” should not be allowed to have children. This Darwinian belief led her to champion birth control and Planned Parenthood, which are based on someone more evolved planning your parenthood for you, controlling your births. It was never about “reproductive rights” or “access to healthcare.” In her words, “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” To prove my point, I just want to let Sanger speak for herself; here are some of my favorite Margaret Sanger quotes: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” “[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits ma...

Darwinian evolution has had a great impact on our society, and I am not just referring to the classroom. When Darwin first crafted his theory of evolution, which his writings show was his attempt to get rid of God and hell, he opened the door to a world that puts no value on life. If mankind is nothing more than some animal, then what is the big deal if one man kills another? Isn’t that what animals do? And does not mankind kill “lower” animals all the time, for both food and sport? Was Darwin trying to push humanity down this slippery slope that devalues human life? I doubt it. Charles Darwin seems like he was a nice guy, but the tragic death of his daughter, the evolutionary influence of his grandfather, and the thought of his father in hell sent him down his own path. But some of his followers eagerly picked up where Darwin left off. Is Darwin responsible for what his followers do? Not really, but his ideas—his very worldview—helped influence some people to view life ...