Good morning,
It’s Tuesday and time again for reader comments and feedback.
THE WORLD IS UNHINGED
I get a lot of responses but some of the crazy stuff I get from some of my conservative friends. Here’s from one of them:
“Please reconcile why you believe a woman has the right to privacy to have an abortion in the ninth month of a pregnancy while at the same time you don’t believe an individual should have the right to choose whether or NOT they should take an experimental Vaccine for Covid?” [sic]
Where does he get this stuff? First, I never said a woman should have an abortion at nine months. My friend betrays a common habit these days of ignoring what a person says and instead overstate the case and put words in their mouth that they never uttered. To be clear, I’m against abortion. It’s a last resort. It should be, as Bill Clinton once said, “legal, safe, and rare.” But to make it rare, we need sex education and wide availability of contraception.
I’ve grown tired of playing defense with these Trumpian/FoxNews accusations and assertions. I am curious what my correspondent has to say about how we should deal with various circumstances that would argue in favor of abortion rights
Women have not achieved majority, capacity to care for a child, etc.
Women who are victims of rape or incest
Cases where there they are at risk of internal bleeding
Ectopic pregnancies
Women who are in accidents where their life is at risk
Women who suffer from cancer or other afflictions that would be affected by pregnancy
Selective termination of excess multiple fertilized eggs resulting from IVF
Women who may be mentally unfit to carry a child to term
Termination of pregnancies with fetal abnormalities
Termination of pregnancy before neurological development
And, while he’s at it, perhaps he can comment on whether he thinks states should enact laws criminalizing moving a woman from a state that doesn’t permit abortions to one that does (because I’m guessing this is coming). These issues are complex and not capable of an easy answer like “right to life.” It’s time to turn the tables and have the “pro-life” (which, of course, typically only relates to pregnancy) people defend their extreme positions.
As for the second contention, regarding the Covid vaccine, it’s not experimental. It was extensively tested. It saved lives. And, whether or not you took it, by others doing so, we’ve kept you safe. This is no more experimental than polio or flu vaccinations. You’re watching too much Tucker Carlson.
This sophistry comes from a college graduate and successful investment manager. He is not ignorant. Some people will simply react to information that does not conform to their confirmation bias with ridiculous claims and repetition of a mantra they have heard. Sadly, fewer people will examine new information, pause, and take stock, perhaps changing—or at least adding a bit of nuance to—their view. Sadly, this gentleman’s reaction is the former.
As Margaret Atwood says in The Handmaid’s Tale, “Ignoring isn't the same as ignorance. You have to work at it.”
THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
The first battle of the post-Roe world will be the lining up of pro-choice and pro-life states enacting laws to further their policy objectives. I’m guessing many of the pro-life states will take positions that are extreme, in order to placate their most rabid “true believers.” Those limitations no doubt will in some cases involve limiting the ability of expectant women leaving the state for an abortion, necessitating the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Some will say the next battle will be the passage of a law making abortion legal nationally, preempting state laws to the contrary. But that law is only as good as the party controlling Congress. The Democrats won’t waive the filibuster to pass such a law. But when/if the Republicans control Congress and the presidency, I’m willing to bet they will. In that case, we would have a national law against abortion, since Roe v. Wade no longer enshrines the constitutionality of that right.
The greatest battle, however, will be in the bit “next act,” namely, the “personification” of the fetus. I think the draft opinion is one step away from concluding that a fetus is a human life. That leads to making the connection that it always is a human life and, therefore, subject to equal protection under the Constitution. And when that happens, we will have a constitutional mandate to protect any fetus from the moment of conception in all fifty states.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN MEN
Fran Liebowitz gave her answer on Bill Maher’s show: “In airports in Europe, all the men are wearing long pants. No pajamas, no shorts, no baseball caps. They’re actually dressed like men, as opposed to like boys.”
Have a good day,
Glenn
From the archives:
I believe that anytime a women wants an abortion for any reason, that should be her choice. It's HER body. How would a man feel if he were forced into castration for any reason? No one, for any reason, has the right to tell someone how to treat one's own body. Following that up, I have often said that if I were to require chemo for a disease at my age, I would have to think very hard at whether I would be willing to put myself through that. The odds would have to be squarely in my corner for me to participate. Just sayin.'