#422 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday August 5)
Good morning,
SPEECH AND OFFENSE
What’s happening with the ACLU? Apparently, a lot of the same stuff that’s happening in America generally. The American Civil Liberties Union is a venerable American institution with the mission to further free speech—regardless of how hateful or objectionable—against silencing. Love it or hate it, the ACLU has defended the First Amendment in cases as extreme as allowing Nazis to stage rallies in communities populated largely by Holocaust survivors. And while it sickens me to think that there would be those who would defend Nazis in any circumstance, the argument that a free society is freest when speech is open and unregulated is a hard argument to reject.
But that’s all changed now in the “post-P.C.” world of the ACLU. Witness two news bits that show the ACLU not to be the stalwart defenders of speech and liberty, but a partisan player in a fraught environment:
1. The ACLU has stated publicly that it will not take on cases where the “values are contrary to our values” or which cause “offense to marginalized groups.” Basically, if it is politically offensive or might cause discomfort to people, the ACLU has decided the speech is no longer subject to protection. That is a big change.
2. The ACLU has stated that abortion causes disproportionate harm to the following groups:
a. Black, Indigenous & other people of color
b. The LGBTQ community
c. Immigrants
d. Young people
e. Those working to make ends meet
f. People with disability
All of that is true. But apparently, in its quest to establish the intersectionality of the effect of abortion restrictions, the ACLU didn’t think to note that the negative impact of abortion restrictions extended to WOMEN! In The Atlantic, Ellen Lewis notes that, contrary to the ACLU’s conclusions, comprehensive longitudinal studies “found that lesbians across the age spectrum are about half as likely to get pregnant as straight women.” As to the nonbinary, there were about 500 trans or nonbinary American abortions in 2017, as against a total of 609,095 that year. The same article notes that the group previously rewrote a Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotation about abortion access being “central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity.” To the ACLU, it became, “when the government controls that decision for [people].”
Ms. Lewis asserts that “The right has declared a war on women. The left has responded by declaring a war on saying ‘women.’”
Of course, transgendered people should have access to abortions, just like naturally born women. But is it necessary to elevate the less than 1% and remove the reference to the other 99%+? And must every reference to gender now be couched in a long list of genders, for fear of offending the word police? Must every case be a litmus test on our inclusiveness and our wokeness? Can’t we be both inclusive and sensitive to the fact that this is mostly about women? One can be appalled by how the anti-abortion and anti-contraception movements affect women in one’s life (a lot more than they affect men!) without in each instance acknowledging the transgender. And yes, merely because I acknowledge that very large affected group is most significantly affected does not diminish my concern for the smaller groups, as well.
THE POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN BOUGHT OR RUN SCARED—BUT THE PEOPLE MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW
This week we learned that the last of the hospitalized kids from the Uvalde mass shooting was released from the hospital—after a two month stay. I’ve thought about this one a lot. It is not only those who die in these senseless killings—by people who shouldn’t own guns, with guns people no one should own—but those whose lives are forever altered by these events. There were many children physically injured, some profoundly. And there were even more forever mentally scarred, who will have to deal with this trauma for the rest of their lives. And, most tragically, there are families grieving for the losses of loved ones—whose pain can never be measured, compensated, or relieved. But trying to prevent these killings from happening again would be a start toward making their deaths have meaning in saving others from death, injury and grief. Perhaps the tide will turn from “thoughts and prayers” and weak bipartisan action toward more meaningful restrictions.
Just as Kansas legislators wrongly assumed that their citizens were willing to toss out state constitutional protections for abortion rights, there are other places where politicians may have overplayed their hand. After all, polls continued to show strong support for the right to choose—even in red states. Polls also show widespread support for reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. I believe that many of our public figures wrongly seem to think that that people are satisfied with the elevation of Second Amendment rights above most others, because that’s what the gun lobby, talk radio, and the most vocal partisans are pushing them. They may find their constituents of different mind and may pay the price at the polls. Public opinion polls continue to suggest that people want intelligent and reasonable restrictions on guns (you know, like the ones previously agreeable to Ronald Reagan and most Republicans of the 1970s, 80s and 90s).
And the tide is turning on the criminality of Mr. Trump and his associates, with most people believing he had a role in instigating the January 6th insurrection and not believing the as-yet-still-unsubstantiated-with-any-evidence “big lie” about a stolen election. Those who support this ridiculous and dangerous mantra that undermines our democracy may find themselves ultimately regretting their fealty to this lie.
BIRTHDAYS, REDUX
In my joy at celebrating Andrea’s birthday yesterday, I forgot to mention Bobby Katz, Orna Wolens, and Barack Obama, two other luminaries that celebrate on August 4th. My apologies to both!
Have a great day,
Glenn