The left is in hysterics because Kavanaugh could be a deciding vote on the SCOTUS bench should abortion reappear on the docket, and he was smeared with false rape accusations. What does that have in common with the abortion topic? Because the only reason why abortion made it to the Supreme Court was because a woman, who claimed to be “gang raped”, wanted and couldn’t get one easily.

The year was 1969. Norma McCorvey was 22, pregnant and unwed when she approached an attorney about wanting an abortion. The Dallas woman didn’t get one, but four years later, her lawsuit fighting Texas’ ban on abortion reached the Supreme Court and made the procedure legal across the United States.

“Miss Norma” was a complicated figure in the abortion debate. McCorvey, who once identified as lesbian, admitted that she had lied about being gang-raped so she could end her pregnancy.
— Dallas Morning News, 2/19/17

It sure was “complicated”.

During those times, there were morals and standards in the United States. Being unmarried and knocked-up was not as socially acceptable and enabled as it is today. There was a stigma and using the “rape” card provided the appropriate cover and absolution from personal responsibility.

It’s not clear who specifically McCorvey accused but the aftermath is now well known. The Supreme Court found the existing anti-abortion laws to be unconstitutional, women subsequently got the right to have abortions on demand, and millions of babies are killed in the womb to this day… all because of a lie.

Sarah Weddington, the Austin, Texas, lawyer who represented McCorvey, told United Press International Tuesday, ‘The issue of how Jane Roe became pregnant is irrelevant to the case. There was nothing in any of the papers filed with the court or in any of the oral arguments made that related to the cause of the pregnancy.’
— United Press International, 9/8/87

A woman lies about a rape. A political goal is met.

McCorvey told syndicated newspaper columnist Carl T. Rowan that she had fabricated her account of being raped by three men and a woman in 1969 because she had hoped to circumvent a 100-year-old Texas law that banned abortions except when the woman’s life was in danger. The transcript of the interview doesn’t make clear why Ms. McCorvey thought that an account of rape would necessarily help win exemption from, or overturn, a law that allowed abortion only to protect a woman’s life.

“I don’t know” is probably the most overused response when someone is asked why they made a false rape accusation.

According to a news release issued by WUSA about the interview, Sarah Weddington, one of the two lawyers who took the case to the Supreme Court, said she had never “touched the issue of rape and only emphasized the question of whether the Constitution gives to the state or leaves to a woman the questions of what she can or must do with her body.”

Telling the truth, heaven forbid, might have poked an ethical hole in the case.

Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said in an interview today that Ms. McCorvey’s disclosure ”should not cloud the discussion about the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. “It was her life circumstances that created the conditions that mitigated against her being straightforward….”
— New York Times, 9/9/87

McCorvey was the “anonymous plaintiff” in the landmark case that made it to the Supreme Court and there was no written mention of her being “raped” in the lawsuit. That aided in her not having to testify under oath.

How convenient and, again, familiar.

While rape was never an issue in the case, public opinion was considered swayed by the media accounts detailing what McCorvey claimed was a gang rape by three men and a woman while she worked for a circus in Georgia.

Imagine the public opinion had there been a 24-hour media and Internet oh-so ready to repeat her lie. McCorvey would be ready with tears-on-cue, playing on the emotions of the public, invoking the horrors of rape, and getting a high court to create a “right” superseding and thus denying “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to millions of children who never made it out of their mothers alive.

Yes, there are those today who forgave Norma McCorvey. She was baptized and went on a crusade, mostly ignored by the liberal media, to inform the American people of the lie that created “Roe vs. Wade”. But the damage was done and a false rape accusation sanctioned the wholesale slaughter of millions of American children.

Being Jane Roe has been a heavy burden. I remember 10 years ago driving past a school playground and seeing these empty swings. I freaked out. I thought: ‘All the playgrounds are empty, all the children are dead and it’s because of me.’
— Norma McCorvey, 1995

McCorvey may have sought some semblance of redemption before her judgment day, but she is no hero and today another false accusation of rape has been used as abortion-on-demand could soon be at risk for the left and all the nonprofits that have made millions of dollars promoting the killing of more than 60 million babies in the United States alone, almost a third (18 million) alone black.

Norma McCorvey was quietly eulogized by the left when she died in 2017; she was a heroine because of her abortion achievement while the lie that got her there was omitted for convenience.

She was also a heroine, eulogized by the right, as she turned on the pro-choice movement.

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation process has brought two very evil topics into the public light. One being abortion and the other false rape accusations.

And in both cases, liberal Democrats would have you believe neither are big deals at all.

That “incident” was a false rape accusation and for precaution-sake, I reached out to the Brookline Police Department to find out if there was anything lingering that may have reared its ugly head.

I received the following response from the Town of Brookline.

Okay, so….

All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality; provided, however, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written request, to: (i) the victim, the victim’s attorney, others specifically authorized by the victim to obtain such information, prosecutors and (ii) victim-witness advocates as defined in section 1 of chapter 258B, domestic violence victims’ counselors as defined in section 20K of chapter 233, sexual assault counselors as defined in section 20J of chapter 233, if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties; and provided further, that all such reports shall be accessible at all reasonable times, upon written, telephonic, facsimile or electronic mail request to law enforcement officers, district attorneys or assistant district attorneys and all persons authorized to admit persons to bail pursuant to section 57 of chapter 276. Communications between police officers and victims of said offenses and abuse may also be shared with the forgoing named persons if such access is necessary in the performance of their duties. A violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both such fine and imprisonment.
— Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 41, Section 97D

One slight problem: there was no rape, thus there was no “victim“.

The “victim” filed a police report of rape and valuable man hours were spent investigating. For some unknown reason, the “victim” was given my name and she subsequently referred to me personally as her attacker.

A very nice Brookline police detective called my place of employment numerous times via the company switchboard (there were no personal smartphones at the time) and identified himself as such, which obviously created unwanted drama. He, on numerous occasions, assured me he knew I didn’t commit the “rape”. He told me he personally interviewed the bartender who knew me at the corner bar I frequented, as well as other patrons who knew me and confirmed my presence there at the time the “rape” was supposed to have occured.

During one such phone conversation with the detective, I was warned to be careful in the Town of Brookline because the boyfriend of the woman (who it turns out was cheating on him while he was out of town) made public threats that he was going to shoot me for raping his girlfriend.

The detective also gave the white “victim” an opportunity to identify me in a public place and once there, failed to do so. A white female district attorney (who obviously believed that women NEVER lie about rape) proceeded to pursue a criminal indictment. I was later told by the detective on the phone that I was three hours from being indicted for rape when the woman suddenly recanted her charge and the matter was dropped.

But the damage was done and I was later fired from my job due to mistakes made due to the stress making it hard to concentrate, as well as the numerous phone calls by police during my work hours.

The “victim” was allowed to just walk away, despite the female district attorney being made privy to information proving my innocence and still aggressively pursuing my prosecution.

Massachusetts prosecutors have violated defendants’ rights to a fair trial regularly and without punishment, even as wrongfully convicted victims of tainted prosecutions have spent years in prison before being freed, decades of court rulings show. Some prosecutors failed to turn over important evidence to defense attorneys or didn’t disclose information bearing negatively on witness credibility, judges said. Others misrepresented evidence in their closing statements to the court.

At least seven prosecutors whose behavior prompted courts to reverse convictions went on to higher posts. Some became judges and district attorneys.
— WGBH, 4/3/16

I attempted to appeal the denial of the public records of this incident with the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office as instructed and was again denied because the identity of the “victim” had to remain protected and confidential.

“Closed”.

So, what’s the conclusion here?

If you are falsely accused of rape in Massachusetts, the false accuser is considered the “victim”, NOT the person who filed a false police report, which incidentally IS a crime.

Whoever intentionally and knowingly makes or causes to be made a false report of a crime to police officers shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than one year, or both.
— Section 13A: False reports to police officers

If you are falsely accused of rape in Massachusetts, you have no access as to what was reported about you, the ability to contest the accuracy of what is in that police “record”, knowing who made the false allegations against, no say in who gets to see that “record” if requested, and how long that “record” will remain active. If there’s no statute of limitations regarding rape, then that false accusation “record” could be maintained indefinitely.

The fact the Town of Brookline has denied my request to see any or all information regarding the incident in question implies a “record” IS in existence and accessible should the right person ask.

The fact a false rape accuser can achieve “victim” status in Massachusetts is something every male in the Commonwealth should be concerned about as their lives can be ruined; not only can the false accuser walk away, but Massachusetts will make sure that false incident comes back to haunt you and the person who ruined your life will get on with hers just fine.

With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.
— Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D., 1994

False rape accusations: Why must we pretend they never happen?

This is the reason why I’m highly suspicious whenever I hear or read about any sexual assault incident.

The left and their media has poo-pooed the notion that women are capable of lying about these matters, for a variety of reasons, but now that demands for the resignation of the President of the United States based on the claims from many women that Donald Trump disputes, the following is an aspect that could be damaging to the narrative.

On the December 8th edition of The Glenn Beck Show, guest Bill O’Reilly offered up a new twist on the ongoing efforts to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election….

Just who could that lawyer be?

Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers

“Hill” reporter John Solomon detailed some of his findings on The Sean Hannity Show, December 15, 2016, and what he found proves that elections can be tampered with… for the right price.

Again, so much of what we’re now finding out now would never have come out had a friendly Hillary Clinton administration been able to dictate the daily narrative. But there just may be women whose stories about sexual harassment and/or abuse may come with a price tag. Those who were promoting a “film” about their supposed incidents with private citizen-Trump (that just so happened the day before a certain election in Alabama) are not doing this just for the cause. There is an expected return and a willing broker.

We all know there are entities that peddle in paying for false allegations to damage the reputations of a given target, i.e. Fusion GPS being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to produce a “dossier” to slime opponent Donald Trump.

It’s just about how much they can get and the public to believe before the truth comes out… again.