Of all the shrill campaigns that have been launched by the Left, none is as continuous as the fight for so-called abortion rights. At least, that is how it seems.
In 1973, American women were granted a sickening freedom that allows them to take the life of their unborn child(ren) for reasons as mundane as “they came at an inconvenient time.” There is no need for necessity to enter the picture. You can even decide abortion is the best option if your child is, in your mind, the wrong race, gender, or has a disability. With this, the superficial and irresponsible aspects of womanhood are praised as empowerment.
As has been the trend for decades, it is near criminal to criticize a woman for such things. If you’re a man and dare to discuss abortion, you are required to be loudly pro-choice. Those in favor of life need not apply. If you’re a woman and attempt to hold fellow females accountable for these brutal beliefs and actions, you’re really exhibiting some sort of internalized misogyny.
It’s all very grotesque.
Now, with President Trump’s second Supreme Court selection right around the corner, the wailing from the crowd of handmaids has been turned up to full volume. With another pick by a Republican president, the possibility of addressing Roe v. Wade comes closer than ever before. And that terrifies them. Why? Because from the Left’s perspective, abortion is the foundation from which all other things spring.
Notice the focus in a piece from Slate entitled: Susan Collins Could Save Roe v. Wade.
Progressives worried about losing Supreme Court protections for voting rights, reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, affirmative action, and a whole lot more are now turning hopeful eyes to Susan Collins. The Republican senator from Maine…represents the best hope of crossing party lines to vote with Democrats to block a Donald Trump nominee eager to overturn Roe v. Wade…
Her one vote can save reproductive freedom for the foreseeable future. The question is whether she understands the scope of that power.
Collins holds the power to save reproductive rights in America.
The piece barely makes mention of a host of other issues. LGBT? Affirmative action? Voting? I have yet to see a crop of breathless think pieces on those subjects in preparation for the new justice. The main focus is and will continue to be whether or not Trump’s selection views Roe v. Wade as a bad decision, and possibly worthy of reconsideration, or not.
A quick search of articles covering Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court shows everything ranging from conciliatory, “The End of Roe v. Wade Is Coming” to alarmist, “Abortion laws in Latin America show what the US could look like in a world without Roe v. Wade.” Regardless of the range of commentary on the issue, it remains clear that Roe v. Wade has moved past the “safe, legal, and rare” moniker and is now considered a regular part of women’s healthcare in the United States of America.
This development is directly connected to the initial ruling, handed down in 1973, and the 1992 decision relating to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a reaffirmation of the original. With both determinations, abortion was considered an actual constitutional right. Since the decision has been on the book for decades, it is now considered precedent. Those like Senator Lindsey Graham, a self-described pro-lifer, even preach the need for respect of this “settled law.”
However, as Rich Lowry writes at National Review, the court’s decision in Roe has been considered garbage for as long as it has existed.
Over the years, the decision’s laughable constitutional inadequacy has been widely recognized. Shortly after it came down, Harvard Law School professor John Hart Ely, a supporter of legalized abortion, wrote that “Roe is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
“Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding,” a former Blackmun clerk, Edward Lazarus, has written. “And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”
This does not keep Graham and others from attempting to weakly stand on precedent, though.
The rabid defense of the indefensible is yet another offshoot of modern-day feminism. Anything concerning women, whether it has been forcefully gained or not, is automatically labeled as good and worthy of protection, even when it is harmful and monstrous. Abortion is the best example of this. The pro-choice crowd, mostly populated by screeching women, bullies pro-life individuals fighting for the rights of unborn children. Worst of all, they bully pregnant women into making a life-ending and permanent decision.
Setting aside the horrific crimes of rape and incest, if both men and women were more responsible with sex, we wouldn’t have this holocaust of abortion in the first place. We’re told that women are simultaneously entirely helpless yet fully independent. We’re routinely reminded that they’re brave and fearless but also somehow incapable of being in control of their own fertility.
In 1973, the highest court in the land inserted itself into the politics of personal responsibility and ended up ushering in the mass slaughter of 60,000,000 unborn lives. The abortion community has been trying to legitimize it ever since.
The ultimate legal clash may be a long way off, but one thing is certain: it was always going to come down to this.