Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Self-righteous, virtue-signaling predators are attacking Judge Roy Moore in force. Even some Republicans are saying that he must prove his innocence, or step aside.
Democrats are applying a presumption of innocence—but only with respect to their own “icons,” even after they admit guilt. Their “mistakes” have to be weighed, it is said, against all the good they do—in advancing the radical leftist agenda.
Moore, after all, has been accused of being a “child molester,” surely the most heinous of crimes. And what does this mean, in his case?
Apparently, when he was a 30-year-old bachelor he dated younger women. Back in my day, jealous women might have called him a “cradle-robber” because they felt they deserved him more. And maybe on occasion he kissed his date too passionately.
The worst accusation is that he engaged in “inappropriate” behavior (we would’ve called it “heavy petting”) with an underage “child.” The woman was 14, not 16, the Alabama age of consent, and not 12, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s suggested age of consent. Women used to marry much younger; my great-great grandmother was about 13, and she had a happy, long, and fruitful life.
What he allegedly did sounds icky to me, and not very smart. Guys, if a 14-year-old girl (“jail bait”) gives you her phone number, invites you to call her on her bedroom phone, and offers to sneak out to meet you, you should run, run, run!
But is it credible? I don’t think so. It sounds very fishy to me. How many women did the Washington Post have to stalk to find a few accusers from 40 years ago who have held their peace through other campaigns until now?
In the wake of the Moore stories, we’re getting a shocking perspective on the depravity of media and political icons, and the pervasive cover-ups. We may applaud the idea of liberation for women, but what we have is freedom for powerful men to expose themselves, fondle, and solicit favors from women—who “consent” and remain silent, in order to protect their careers.
The most important issue for feminists is the right to abortion; thus, they protect men as long as they defend that right. But Judge Moore would actually work to protect the unborn, while his opponent would allow them to be killed, even minutes before they would take their first breath. Ironically, abortion is most needed by the most predatory men, as it removes the undeniable evidence of their behavior, and averts paternity suits.
The hypocrisy of the feminists is highlighted by what is not alleged against Judge Moore, but was evidently done with impunity by leftist politicos such as Bill Clinton: injury (“you’d better put ice on that”), rape, possibly fathering and abandoning a mixed-race child, and trashing the reputations of women (with Hillary’s help).
And who can believe that radical feminists care about molesting children, when they are silent about the saddest, most unequivocal victims of all: underage girls presenting for abortions at Planned Parenthood. Almost every single one is a victim of statutory rape, and many are being used and abused in sex trafficking. Their only contact with the medical system may be Planned Parenthood—but have we heard of a single rescue? And where is the outrage about sexualizing children in Planned Parenthood’s sex “education” programs?
Our “core values” were allegedly violated—40 years ago—by Judge Moore. But what are these values? We hear no complaints from leftists about sex-saturated movies and television shows, rampant pornography, and widespread promiscuity starting very young. And where is the defense of marriage, stable families, modesty, and chastity?
Judge Moore has exemplified these values in his long faithful marriage, while one of the most prominent holier-than-thou Republicans calling for him to stand aside has reputedly been guilty of serial adultery and ditching a devoted, ailing wife in favor of someone younger, richer, and more beautiful. Whatever Judge Moore did, if it makes him unfit for office, then the guiltier and still offending ones need to go first.
If they did, how many would be left?
Dr. Jane M. Orient, M.D., has appeared on major television and radio networks in the U.S. speaking about issues related to Healthcare Reform.
She is currently president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and has been the chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Society since 1988.
Dr. Jane Orient has been in solo practice of general internal medicine in Tucson since 1981 and is a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. Her op-eds have been published in hundreds of local and national newspapers, magazines, internet, followed on major blogs and covered in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Dr. Jane Orient authored YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Health Care, published by Crown; the second through fourth editions of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis, published by Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; and Sutton’s Law, a novel about where the money is in medicine today.
Dr. Orient’s position on healthcare reform:
“The Healthcare plan will increase individual health insurance costs, and if the federal government puts price controls on the premiums, the companies will simply have to go out of business. Promises are made, but the Plan will deliver higher costs, more hassles, fewer choices, less innovation, and less patient care.”