Forget the FBI. Most of us know already. The attacks on the Kavanaugh nomination are not about places, dates, and people. It’s all about abortion. Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, and the ACLU, Justice Ginsberg’s alma mater, have made that clear.

So let’s look at abortion.

Dr. Christine Ford certainly supports abortion, which is her right. So must all Democrat office holders. Democrat National Committee Chairman Tom Perez says so.

Now, these folks can’t defend abortion as the right to kill a baby. They know that. So they resort to abstractions. In 1973, Roe v. Wade bestowed upon them a “right to privacy” that suddenly appeared in the “penumbra” of the Ninth Amendment. A woman now has “the right to choose.”

But please don’t ask her what she’s choosing.

We don’t know whether or not Dr. Ford has ever had an abortion. We don’t care. But we do know — indeed, we have seen this past week in the halls of the Senate Dirksen Building — that support of abortion brings on powerful emotions. After all, abortion defies the natural law that is “written on our hearts.”

Some of these emotions can be suppressed — some, but not all. Consider the anger and hatred that is natural when one observes the killing of an innocent child. If one supports such killing, that natural anger and hatred will naturally be directed inward. Whereupon, when confronted, the first response of the callous conscience will be denial.

Live Babies Versus the ‘Good Life’

Britannica Online describes “denial” as “the conscious refusal to perceive that painful facts exist. In denying latent feelings … an individual can escape intolerable thoughts, feelings, or events.”

But what if that “escape” is impossible?

Many a conflicted supporter of the murder of the innocent does not find it possible to deny those powerful emotions. If one cannot extinguish them, the primeval reflex of self-defense requires that such powerful, inescapable emotions be redirected.

The oppressive guilt for such a heinous crime must be aimed at someone else.

Finding a Scapegoat

But aimed at whom? Britannica Online gives us a hint. It defines “projection” as “a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.”

Now consider the dilemma facing abortion supporters. They know that it kills the child, but they can’t say so. If they defend it at all, they must employ deflection. Since abortion is a “right,” the abortion supporter finds relief in transferring that natural self-hatred onto the pro-lifer. This hatred intensifies if the pro-lifer poses a threat to that “right” — for instance, if he has been nominated to occupy a critical seat on the Supreme Court.

Here the reflex of self-defense comes into play. Supporters of abortion often testify to how a baby could destroy one’s plans for a good life. When the “choice” is between the baby and a good life, the baby must be destroyed so the “good life” can go on.

But now a dangerous stranger stands in her way. “Abortion rights” could be eviscerated as easily as they were created: by a majority vote of the Supreme Court. And if a new member of the Court can destroy her life, the mother has every right to defend herself. Since her “life” is at stake, the advocate for the unborn child must be destroyed, so the child can be destroyed.

The Indelible Laughter and the Silent Scream

During her testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. Ford could not recall most details surrounding the alleged assault. She did, however, refer with confidence to “the uproarious laughter between the two [alleged assailants]. They’re having fun at my expense.” She explained that she could recall this particular because it was “indelible in the hippocampus.”

Well, either Dr. Ford was telling the truth, or she wasn’t. But her testimony painted an indelible image.

Consider: if one cannot “deny intolerable thoughts,” one can project “unwanted feelings … onto another person.”

In 1984, Dr. Bernard Nathanson produced a groundbreaking movie of a real abortion. Narrating the ultrasound video, Dr. Nathanson points to the moment in which the baby emits a “silent scream” as she is being dismembered.

Another indelible image.

An Intolerable Thought

A founder of the Abortion Rights Action League, Dr. Nathanson had performed abortions by the tens of thousands. He finally realized that he had been killing babies for a living. He later became a pro-life crusader and a convert to Catholicism.

Dr. Ford is an educated woman. Like Dr. Nathanson, she knows what happens in an abortion. And a screaming, dying baby certainly constitutes an “intolerable thought.”

Consider: She recalls the “uproarious laughter.” A permanent, harrowing memory. Is she projecting? Are her supporters? Are they drowning out the harrowing moment in which the aborted child is screaming as the abortionist rips her heart out?

The advocate for the unborn child must be destroyed, so the child can be destroyed.

Because abortion destroys a life, the person projecting must destroy someone else’s life. That is what happened at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary last week, embodied in the violent mobs demanding that Judge Kavanaugh be destroyed.

Why the violence? Because denial and repression ultimately don’t work, as the expert in psychology Dr. Ford undoubtedly knows. They must be allowed to surface in a manner as powerful as the original sentiment of shame and guilt that hounds the person doing the projecting.

Again, this has nothing to do with Dr. Ford’s veracity, or Judge Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. Today, he simply represents the possibility that the long-standing repression of the truth of abortion might now be exposed not only medically (which has been true all along), but constitutionally. After all, a just law must reflect reality and the good.

Give Us Barabbas!

The pro-abortion senators, and the radicals that constitute the core of their voters and financial donors, demand that Judge Kavanaugh be not only defeated, but destroyed. They have a Prime Directive: to stamp out the truth of abortion forever, and replace it with a “right” protected by repression and voluntary amnesia.

Kavanaugh, through no choice of his own, represents to this pro-death community the “intolerable truth” that must be thrust permanently into the Memory Hole.

What is the future they desire?

As O’Brien describes it to Winston in Room 101, Big Brother’s torture chamber, that future is “a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”

Behold the vision they hold dear — that they revere. Translating Orwell into the language of Senator Feinstein, the future is “a scalpel vivisecting a human face forever.”

Every one of them screaming.