The wise and benificent public is weighing on the the debacle that is the leak from the Supreme Court about possibly overturning Roe v Wade. Fortunately we have Hollywood to set it all straight.
Stephen Colbert is a fine example. He said that the Supreme Court didn't really care what the public wants. ("Doesn't really care" was not his words. I cleaned that up ... in what one account described as a "profanity-laced speech.") He was absolutely right. The judicial branch is not concerned about what the public wants; it is concerned about what the law says. But, of course, the public doesn't really care (my words) what the law says; they're only concerned about what they want. He complained that "Decisions about what you can do with your body are now being made by four old dudes and a woman who thinks The Handmaid’s Tale is a rom-com." Interesting how women who disagree with killing babies are ridiculed and excluded from this discussion (Remember when the pro-life segment of women went to the anti-Trump women's march but were excluded by the other women because they weren't pro-abortion?), and the age and gender of the others disqualify them as well. He complained, "Why didn't they tell the senators they thought Roe v Wade was wrong in their confirmation hearings?" The question they were asked was whether or not Roe v Wade was legal precedent. They hadn't been asked to examine the ruling until this current case came up. Then the other scintillating "truth statement" (from the guy who coined the term "truthiness"). "American voters support abortion in all or most cases at 80%." Now, according to Pew Research, that number is actually less than 60%, but neither law nor facts stays these couriers from the swift execution of the most vulnerable humans. "But what do I know?" Colbert concluded. "I’m not a Supreme Court justice. I’m not a good enough liar." Oh, trust me, sir. You excel at deception. Meanwhile singer Phoebe Bridgers uses the supreme logic that "I had an abortion, so everyone deserves that kind of access." Or, "I did it, so that defines it as good and right." Just a couple of prime examples from the entertainment wise.
As a sidenote, is anyone wondering why the media is only giving the pro-abortion response to this story? Surely there is no pro-abortion bias in the media? And would you please stop referring to it as "reproductive rights"? If it was simply about reproduction, no one would care. No one is questioning a woman's right to choose if she reproduces. The question is whether she gets to kill the child that results from her choices. Bottom line, this story is troubling to the extreme. If the leak of this document was not criminal -- anti-constitutional -- and, therefore, treasonous, then it should have been. Coercing the court is just plain wrong. Handing this information to the media was just plain wrong. And, as it has been pointed out, it is a draft, a possible outcome. It is not the final ruling. It is not the final vote. But we're all up in arms over possibilities. Then there's the whole problem of Justice John Roberts. The conservatives thought "He's one of our boys." He's sure in the practice of proving them wrong. And, of course, there is the problem for the pro-life side thinking, "Woo hoo! The end is near!" Not even close. The end may be beginning, but it's not near. Not when 59% of the population including the entire Democratic party believes that the child has no value whatsoever. Changing permission to kill them doesn't change hearts or minds. A dedication to "I feel" as the ultimate source of right and wrong is not fixed by repealing Roe v Wade. That will be a lot longer process.
5 comments:
It's interesting to watch the selective memory by the pro Roe crowd. The fact that Roe was foisted on us by 9 old, unelected, white men has conveniently slipped their minds. Further, the fact that this will put the issue in the hands of legislatures where it belongs seems to worry these folks a bit too much. If they're right about the support, then there shouldn't be any problems legislating abortion going forward. It's also interesting to note the recent attempts to pass legislation that (at a minimum) opens the door to post birth abortion. It could be me, but legislating post birth abortions seems like the extreme position to be taking.
As a Christian, I would prefer that abortions would never happen. As someone who lives in the real world where these decisions require political compromise, I believe that there is room for a political compromise that would allow the pro life movement to focus on persuasion, rather than legislation. Especially if we could redirect the millions of taxpayer dollars away from PP and toward making adoption more accessible.
It's absolutely hilarious to watch hideously unattractive women on social media threatening to stop having sex with men. It's also amusing to watch the women who are threatening to end "hook up" culture in response to this. I wonder if they understand that ending hookup culture might actually lower the number of abortions?
To those who asked the question, "Do the pro life conservatives realize that repealing Roe means that there will be more Black children born?", the answer is yes. We'd love to see the "Black community" stop aborting Black children in high numbers.
Finally, given the fact that my mother chose not to abort me, I'll always be pro adoption and anti abortion.
Re: the hookup culture. I saw this non-religious You Tube video that really made sense. I recommend it.
I am always baffled even though no longer surprised when people take these self-opposing positions like "Old white guys can't be trusted ... unless they're agreeing with us."
I also think that it's amazing that someone has convinced women that sexualizing themselves, and sleeping with large numbers of random guys (who aren't interested in anything more than sex) is somehow empowering to the women.
I recently read an article discussing how the "women's freedom movement" has been won ... by men. Now that we (as a society) have managed to convince women that they should be just like men to get what they want, including sexually loose, the distinction is harder to see, and it is not "pro-women."
It is interesting that after all the warnings about right wing extremists and the risks they pose, all we seem to be seeing lately is left wing extremists.
Who thinks that threatening the judicial system (judges/juries/witnesses) etc with violence is the best way to see justice administered?
Post a Comment