Perfect clarity.

AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Paul GleiserPerfect clarity. May 12, 2022

Do you remember the Senate confirmation hearings for soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson back in March? Do you remember this exchange between Jackson and Senate Judiciary Committee member Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee?

BLACKBURN: Can you provide a definition for the word, ‘woman?’

JACKSON: Can I provide a definition? No. I can’t.

BLACKBURN: You can’t?

JACKSON: Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

Suddenly we were forced to understand that in the absence of a degree in biology – which most of us don’t have – we couldn’t know for certain what a woman is.

And to think that for 24 years I have confidently believed that I’m married to one. From boyhood I have believed that I can spot one from a distance. Listening to Katanji Brown Jackson, however, I learned that it’s not that simple.

But just as confusion was settling over the land, a shaft of light cut through the gathering darkness. In a bit of irony, the source of that light turned out to be the Supreme Court.

Thanks to a leaked draft opinion that indicates that the high court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade – the 1973 decision that nullified every state abortion law in the country – the inability to ascertain what a woman is (in the absence of a degree in biology) is beginning to clear up. With that draft Supreme Court opinion in hand, Democrats, for their part, now seem absolutely certain.

Listen to this montage of top Dems that includes (in order) Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen, Nancy Pelosi and Jen Psaki.

HARRIS: Because what we are seeing around this country are extremist Republican leaders who are seeking to criminalize and punish women for making decisions about their own body.”

SCHUMER: A hundred million women Americans right to control their own bodies and they’re focused on a leak.”

JEFFRIES: The freedom for a woman to make her own health care decisions…”

YELLEN: I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy…”

PELOSI: Here we are on Mothers Day, a week where the Court has slapped women in the face in terms of disrespect…”

PSAKI: Dozens and dozens of Republicans in Congress have signed on to the Mississippi court case advocating for severe restrictions on a woman’s right to choose and a woman’s right to make choices about her own body…”

You can make a drinking game out of listening to hyperventilating Dem politicians, the talking heads at MSNBC, and a veritable army of shrieking protesters on the front lawns of Supreme Court justices, confidently using the word, ‘woman.’ Where only a few weeks ago the Left was unable to define the word, they now seem to have achieved perfect clarity.

But if you’re still confused as to the definition of the word, ‘woman,’ here it is.

A woman is someone capable of becoming pregnant and who might then need an abortion.

Aren’t you glad we’ve finally cleared that up?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of ATW Media, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The TEAM FM in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Pete A Fasanello says:

    When the government has no respect for the law – why should the citizen ?

  2. Jim Lee says:

    Very good Paul.

  3. Jim says:

    By the way, it turns out that the person who named the tuna brand “Chicken of the Sea” was *not* a marine biologist.

    (Born ahead of his or her time; in our day, that person might have made a fine Supreme Court justice.)

  4. Jim says:

    But the Dems are still struggling with biology. They think that a baby is a body part.

  5. Darrell Durham says:

    If the argument is simply about the right to choose, then 15 weeks should suffice. Many argue that Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion was just as dividing then, and the liberals worked the system to get it passed, citing a right-to-privacy law violation. Some arguments from both sides are valid and is why the Supreme Court is willing to return it to each state to decide. I suppose Nancy never considered the irony of supporting abortion on Mother’s Day.

  6. Linda M says:

    Wonder if all these people like nancy, chuckie and others who support abortion on up to birth ever thought about …what if their mother had decided to have an abortion when pregnant with them? There would be no nancy or chuckie to champion the cause now. Be careful for what you wish for or what cause you champion because you have no idea what you are depriving the world of.

  7. Ron Eagleman says:

    When you witness a candidate for the supreme court not able to define a woman, it is pretty obvious that the nomination was not for intellect or reason. Even so, this nominee was approved by Republican senators, as enough gave the sitting president deference to have his choice. However, Republican nominees have to fight accusations of gang rape, back alley abortions, or other “Borking” by Democrat senators. For example, 5 of the 7 justices who made Roe the law of the land were nominated by Republican presidents. What are the odds that any of the Democrat justices will ever vote to send the abortion legislation to the states to allow elected representatives to debate and legislate? I would bet there are 2 chances… slim and none, and Slim left town.
    A little off the subject, but I am surprised that “Raggedy Jen” did not blame the shortage of baby formula on mothers who chose not to have an abortion. If only more would have done the right thing, the supply would be adequate!

  8. Matthew says:

    Since the US has the highest infant mortality rate of all developed nations , maybe now all those folks protesting at clinics all these years among other things,can now turn their focus on that.

    • Rick says:

      According to the United Health Foundation, over 21,000 infants died in 2018 in contribution to the infant mortality rate. In 2018, the total number of abortions in the United States was over 619,000. There’s your perspective.

  9. Edwin L Portier says:

    As usual, you have once again demonstrated great insight and clarity ! Good job, again.

  10. Mike says:

    I am a biologist and can give you the best example of male and female humans; “Humans, like many other species, are called ‘diploid’. This is because our chromosomes exist in matching pairs – with one chromosome of each pair being inherited from each biological parent. Every cell in the human body contains 23 pairs of such chromosomes; our diploid number is therefore 46, our ‘haploid’ number 23.” As I have said, we are NOT talking about kittens or puppies.

    Now the difference between men and women, “The X and Y chromosomes, also known as the sex chromosomes, determine the biological sex of an individual: females inherit an X chromosome from the father for a XX genotype, while males inherit a Y chromosome from the father for a XY genotype (mothers only pass on X chromosomes.” When YOU are born you are either XX or XY genotype. From that point forward YOU are that, period. Someone changes your look, shape, hormones, whatever, IT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR GENOTYPE. So you are born male, you will always be a male, and born female your DNA is always female. SORRY RADICALS, that can NEVER change.

    Mother Nature did this for a very good reason. The more complex species cannot exist without reproduction and reproduction must have a male and female. THAT CANNOT BE ALTERED.
    So there it is, love it or hate, it Biology Rules The Day.

    • Ron Eagleman says:

      Well said! As a major in microscopic anatomy, I totally agree with your clear explanation of what most people understand intuitively. But for the “wokers” who are confused: when the child is delivered by the Dr., midwife, or other, and then spanks the child on the rear, that person turns the child over and states to the mother; “you have a boy or you have a girl”. The plumbing can be mutilated, altered, or disguised, but the biological fact, as Mike describes, is that this child is either XX or XY genotype. Yes, you can argue that the laws that govern human biology can be interpreted however you would prefer, and you can also argue that the law of gravity is only sometimes true. Try jumping out of a building.

  11. Matthew says:

    Hopefully one day the majority of folks will focus or be concerned about more important issues,the kind that really have or can have profound impact on our lives and well being , as a society and species.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *