The Soccer Mommy Soapbox

WASHINGTON– On July 23, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Jones v. Smith allowed whites to murder blacks for any reason they chose, with no fear of prosecution by the government.   The case was pushed through the court system by a vocal minority of white-supremacists.  

After the Court’s decision was handed down, skinheads addressed reporters waiting outside the Supreme Court building: “This is a great day to be an American.  Until this day, we have been hindered by forced interaction with blacks.   We are repulsed by their presence, and, as such, have not been able to participate in society with the same freedom and opportunities afforded to others who are less affected by their odious existence.”

The group praised the Court saying, “For any whites who feel inner-conflict from having to interact with blacks,  it is now their legal right to resolve those conflicts by killing the blacks who lie at the source of it.”

Most citizens strongly opposed the decision, and individual states began to limit the number of murders occurring under their watch.   States were allowed to place certain restrictions on the killings once a black person was considered “acceptable” — defined as “the consensus of at least 100 whites that the black person in question  may be of  use to society in the future.”   For those states ratifying the restrictions, the murder of an Accepted black would be considered  illegal (with the exception of those cases in which the white would suffer physical or emotional harm if  prevented from killing the black).

The legalized genocide also affected many people working in the weapons-retail industry who opposed  the Court’s decision and felt they should not have to sell guns, knives, ropes, or explosives to a white person obtaining a weapon for the purpose of killing a black.   Many states enacted “conscience”  laws, allowing an employee to refrain from willful participation in genocide through the sale of weapons to known white-supremacists.

To achieve a thorough acceptance of genocide in the culture, white-supremacists infiltrated major media outlets and universities, places of strategic importance in shaping public opinion.  A decades-long campaign promoting apathy made the genocide only an occasional thought in the minds of those once so appalled by it.   Phrases such as A White’s Right to Avoid Conflict  put a positive face on an ugly practice.  The murders were called Conflict-Resolutions.    Anyone opposed to the genocide was labeled as close-minded, a religious zealot, ignorant, or unenlightened. 

White-supremacists across America were encouraged to move into any neighborhood of their choice, even those likely to attract blacks.  Whites did not have to worry about taking steps to avoid blacks since it was now legal to kill them, even if that desire arose solely from the inconvenience of having to see them on occasion.

For the past three decades, many human rights groups have fought to raise awareness and have helped to enact laws that place restrictions on the genocide.  There has been growing optimism that this deadly form of racism will one day be eradicated.  Since 2010, over 48 million blacks have been killed in the United States by white-supremacists who are fiercely adamant about their rights concerning “conflict-resolution.”

Today, in July of 2045,  people who support genocide have grown impatient with all legally-imposed limits.  Though happy with the original court decision, they believe too many blacks are achieving Acceptable status.   Further, they fear that all white-supremacists may not be reaching the highest possible levels of personal fulfillment.  They have written a new bill, worded to portray whites as fellow victims of the genocide, rather than its perpetrators.  Here are excerpts from the Freedom of Conflict-Resolution Act:

“Prior to the Jones v. Smith decision in 2010, an estimated 1,200,000 whites each year were forced to resort to illegal murder of blacks, despite the risk of their guns backfiring, cutting themselves on the knives they used to stab their black victims, infection, bleeding, scars, and death.  Before Jones v. Smith it is estimated that thousands of whites died annually in the United States as a result of accidental injuries they sustained while murdering blacks . . . The right to privacy protects a white’s decision to avoid conflict prior to the black’s Acceptability . . .  There are increasing threats to the sense of well-being and freedom that genocide provides to whites . . . In 2043, South Dakota became the first state in more than 15 years to enact a ban on genocide in nearly all circumstances.  Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Jones in the courts . . . Legal and practical barriers to a full range of weapons endanger the health of whites (including perceived emotional health).  Incremental restrictions have made access to weapons extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many whites across the country.  Currently, 87% of the counties in the United States have no weapons dealers that are willing to sell to white-supremacists desiring to kill blacks.” 

Acceptability is completely redefined at the bottom portion of the Freedom of Conflict Resolution Act:

“Acceptability refers to the ability of the black person in question to state a secret password that has been previously set between the white-supremacist and the one selling the weapons.    Each case is subject to a different password, if desired, by any white and his weapons-dealer.  Further, if by chance a black person guesses the correct password, the white and his weapons-dealer are permitted to change it without previous notice or acknowledgement.”

Needless to say, white-supremacists hope that by defining Acceptability in terms that can be changed to suit any situation, no state will be able to impose any limits on the right to commit genocide.   Looking back on three and a half decades of systematic genocide in America, it is easy to forget we are actually a free nation.   The lives of 48 million of our own have never experienced the freedom citizenship purportedly secures.

[The End]

***********

Anyone who knows me probably thinks I will appeal to the ridiculous and horrific nature of the above scenario, pointing out the parallels between the fictional legalized genocide and the reality of legalized abortion.  Further, you may suspect that I will also draw the obvious conclusion that just as the black minority needed protection and advocacy in the fictional account, so do unborn children who don’t even have a voice in our world.   Wow, what a great point you’ve just made!

The only thing I want to say about the fictional story is that all the facts and time-tables are true, I just changed the labels and dates. You can probably figure everything out yourself.  If not, email me.  The only parallel I will point to is that “Acceptability” is actually “Viability”.      

Viability used to be defined  (in Roe v. Wade) as a child  “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.  Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks), but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”   But that was in the days of good, old-fashioned abortion.  Advances in technology have increased the amount of time a baby can live outside the womb, making an infant “viable” much earlier in the pregnancy.   Therefore, the rules have to be changed.    

In the Freedom of Choice Act, viability is now defined as, “That stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.”   So, when is that?  Bingo!      

That’s the point.  There is no “when”.  It’s up to the doctor (who has no qualms about performing abortions)  to judge at what point any one baby can begin to survive outside of the woman.  There is no mention that, in the meantime, this baby will be fed, bathed, or changed by the nursing staff.  If those actions are permitted within the definition of viability, then babies as young as 20 weeks (or younger) can be viable (and therefore exempt from abortion).

If the definition is taken as it is written in FOCA, even a three year-old wouldn’t qualify as viable if clothing, food, and shelter aren’t provided.  By making viability vague, the age of the child can be quite advanced but still subject to legal “termination” as it is so nicely put.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS