The Left Is Going Nuts Over The Alabama, Georgia And Ohio Abortion Bills. It’s Hard To Like Them (Or Respect Them) When They Are Going Nuts

Last week, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who was once a respectable, perceptive commentator  but who has apparently been driven over the edge by Donald Trump,  claimed that the Alabama Human Life Protection Act will end Roe v. Wade. As I have written here, the law is 100% unconstitutional based on existing law. I doubt that it will even reach the Supreme Court. It will be struck down in lower Courts, and SCOTUS will decide that there is no legal controversy. Toobin, however, decided to use his perch to fearmonger, and shamelessly:

Roe v. Wade is gone and every woman in Alabama who gets pregnant is gonna be forced to give birth soon. And that’s gonna be true in Alabama, it’s gonna be true in Missouri, it’s gonna be true, probably, in Georgia. And that’s what the law is because that’s what the Presidential election was about, in part, last time.”

Let’s see: false, highly unlikely, false, false, and false. Nor can anyone seriously argue that the 2016 election was “about” abortion. The Pew Research Center polled voters about their top concerns, and here were the results:

I count abortion as 11th on the list. Toobin’s statement is fake history and fake news. It is simply false. He blathered on…

“This is what this fight has been about, for years. I think the legislators were very smart, they waited until they got five votes on the Supreme Court and now they’re gonna push this thing through. And Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are gonna be joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and this is a victory that Rick (Santorum) and others have been fighting for decades and they’ve won and they should celebrate.”

I don’t know why Toobin just didn’t scream, “ARRRRRGH! WE’RE DOOMED! DOOMED!” and leave it at that. He has no idea how the justices will vote, and since he has proven himself of late to have become an hysterical, partisan hack, there is no reason to take his analysis seriously.

More seriously, however, than model Emily Ratajkowski, whose protest of the Alabama law involved  posting a nude photo of herself on social media, which she has done before when there wasn’t an abortion bill to protest. I think she just likes posting nude and near-nude photos of herself, not that I can blame her. This isn’t quite nude, but you get the idea…

Boy, THAT will punish those men who don’t respect female autonomy!

Emily wrote this to accompany her “punishment”:

“This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape. These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce. The states trying to ban abortion are the states that have the highest proportions of black women living there. This is about class and race and is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve and are protected by under Roe vs. Wade.”

Our bodies, our choice.

Well, you just have to do better than that, and if you can’t, then  shut up. (And remember, I do not advocate overturning Roe at this point.)

  • Attacking legislators for their age and gender marks the model as a hypocrite and a bigot, though a common variety within the current American Left.
  • I’ve discussed the “incest and rape” fallacy here many times. If the issue is human life and when it begins, incest and rape are irrelevant to the discussion. A life is a life, and how or why it begins doesn’t change the value of the life. When someone signals that they don’t comprehend this, that tells me, and should tell everyone, that they haven’t thought very hard about what they are protesting, or that they aren’t very bright. Either way, if an advocate on either side of the debate goes in that dumb direction, I’m disregarding them. It’s static and ethics pollution.
  • “Uphold the patriarchy” is another bit of nonsense cant, about as serious or persuasive as the lyrics of “Imagine.” It is a buzz phrase for anti-male bigotry, nothing more, nothing less.
  • These men are asserting the government’s duty to protect the lives of citizens. Their position is that when women use their bodily autonomy to kill an unborn child, that should be considered a crime, just as when they use their autonomy to shoot someone. The only way someone like Ratajkowski can claim that the objective of such laws is to oppress women is to completely ignore the other life involved in this ethical conflict. Doing so  is intellectually dishonest or stunningly ignorant.
  • If these laws are rooted in racism, why would they seek  to protect the disproportional number of black fetuses aborted in those states?
  • Women can choose not to reproduce, completely effectively, right now. Nobody is telling any woman she has to reproduce. See, Emily, “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is fiction, just like “The Walking Dead.” The idea is that if you have created a living human being, you can’t then kill it or delegate killing it to someone else, no matter how much hardship avoiding the murder option might mean. Starting that prohibition from conception is unworkable, but later? That’s a utilitarian necessity.
  • The fundamental human right that must take precedence over all others is the right to live.

 

40 thoughts on “The Left Is Going Nuts Over The Alabama, Georgia And Ohio Abortion Bills. It’s Hard To Like Them (Or Respect Them) When They Are Going Nuts

  1. Women can choose not to reproduce, completely effectively, right now. Nobody is telling any woman she has to reproduce.

    I like to point out that this is one of the places where hypocrisy is alive and well among the pro abortion crowd. Just point out that plentiful of men are supporting children they never wanted, and you’ll get the response that he has the ability to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

    Either they are misogynistic and don’t think women should be held to the same standard they hold men to, or are happy to throw logic out the window on the topic.

    • “Either they are misogynistic and don’t think women should be held to the same standard they hold men to, or are happy to throw logic out the window on the topic.”

      Why not both?

  2. The evil men trying to control women’s bodies message fails. The message to elect women was immediately plastered on social media. Alabama did just that. Alabama House of Representative Terri Collins introduced the bill. Governor Kay Ivy signed it. In 2018 Ivy won election by over 72%. They did what their constituents wanted.

    Will it stand the legal tests? Probably not. But, I recognize the goal of many of these bills is to get before SCOTUS.

    • I noticed in the wake of these various laws a proliferation of “men should not legislate women’s bodies” memes.

      Not a soul addressed the issue that Governor Collins of AL was a woman (I did not know myself until after I noticed all these memes). It seems addressing reality is of low priority in this debate.

  3. If I recall the original case the court said that a woman’s right to choose must be balanced with the state’s interests of protecting the unborn.

    How does the SCOTUS know what the state’s interest is or does the reference to the state actually mean the federal government’s ideas on what is a compelling state interest. It seems to me that, given advancements in medicine, it is time to revisit the concept of when personhood begins even if they come back with the same decision as in 1973.

      • I understand that point. However, the ability to survive outside the womb is substantially different today than it was in 1973. That is the only reason I think the decision should be revisited.

        My understanding of the Alabama bill was to attempt to force the court to reexamine where the point the state should step in to protect what may be a viable child. It is as likely as not that the SCOTUS may choose not to hear the case irrespective of how lower courts rule.

        • Can a baby delivered after 9 months of gestation survive on its own outside the womb? This just doesn’t seem to be a good way to define personhood.

          • Joe, My use of the word survive was improper. Obviously no child can survive indefinitely without external support.
            Survive just happened be a convenient way of saying “without internal biologically integrated maternal life support.

  4. Oh wow! Did that Emily what’s-her-name woman just call the aborting of black babies “crime control”?
    And they insist that conservatives are racist!

  5. Of course they’re fearmongering. They are looking for ammunition to use in the election and they think this is the equivalent of Henry Knox going to Crown Point. I think they might be wrong, though. The left’s numbers are already off the charts with young women and single women, and there isn’t much room to do better there. Maybe they’ll pick up a few points among young men who like being able to fuck and truck, but they are just as likely not to care, or to be from demographics that vote left already, and they already off the charts with the pussywhipped, pussyhatted men who go along with whatever mistress says. I think a lot of this other rhetoric, like telling a “decent conservative” to switch his vote for sissy and aunty and so on, isn’t going anyplace. Still, the last election was decided by not that many votes in three states, as has been pointed out many times. There is a chance that enough of a change might peel away just enough to change the verdict this time out, even if they can’t get the popular vote compact in place yet.

    • “fuck and truck”

      I learn something every day here at EA. Sometimes I need mental bleach afterwards, but it is a rough world out there. This is an island of relative sanity.

      (I am out of my head quite regularly. As long as I post this site is sane to the extent I am… therefore ‘relative.’ /sn)

  6. Once again, there are various pro-choice logical fallacies and unethical rationalizations being bandied about, like this for example.

    Maybe you can make a list of all the fallacies and unethical rationalizations in the abortion debate?

    • Yes, maybe the parents SHOULD have thought about whether they could afford the consequences before deciding they needed to have mind-blowing sex. Unfortunately, Dad was thinking with the wrong head, and Mom was only too willing to go along. Once Mom’s pregnant, then that baby’s their responsibility. Don’t take on a responsibility you can’t handle.

      • The fallacy is that known as a non sequitir.

        It is argued that abortion violates a right not to be killed. Going hungry does not violate such a right per se.

        There is a similar argument in the illegal immigration debate, that proponents of illegal immigration are criticized for not inviting illegal aliens into their homes, and as such do not really “care” about them. This is too a non sequitir. The proponents argue that the illegal aliens have a right to enter the United States, and that excluding them violates that right. Refusing to invite someone to live with you would not violate any right they have to enter the United States.

  7. Emily Ratajkowski represents a puzzle that is complex and difficult to interpret. How one defines her will define how one defines oneself in relation to important themes and ideas. Essentially, she is a kind of (lite)porn-star: a woman who has given herself over to a thorough objectification and who makes her living from it. It is not that far, in essence, from a kind of visual prostitution. But, this is so common today that it is seen as ‘normalcy’. It is hardly questioned. Yet it should be.

    Strange then that she says she upholds the notion of female independence and sovereignty. Is it really true though that she ‘owns her own body’? To be so deeply involved in ‘objectification of woman’ and selling herself to ‘the male gaze’ (to quote feminist concepts) — this is what she has done and what activity best defines her — are questionable ideological positions for one who is asserting her ‘sovereignty’. Really, her declarations become a bit absurd.

    She resorts to the standard set of Sixties-era tropes: revolutionary ideals about ‘overturning the patriarchy’, emphasis on class issues and hierarchy, and then ‘the oppression of women’ by nefarious white men. Yet, seemingly unaware of the conflict, one might ask: ‘Who is the real owner of her body?’ And what is she doing with her body?

    Sexual objectification and giving oneself over to lust — to work with a Thomist idea — does not ever ‘free’ a person but leads to their slavery. That is a hard truth to state within a generally perverse and corrupt culture yet it must be said. In any case suggested, proposed.

    She present me with another set of problems too. First, it is imperative that a person, any person, have the right to critique the systems that surround us and into which we are subsumed. It is not improper to question capitalism and its effects, neither from right-leaning or a left-leaning position. Nor is it improper for a woman, or a man, to criticize how cultural pressure and economic systems, or economic pressures, mold people. Real personal sovereignty must be based on real respect and valuation of the individual person. (That is a core Christian concept too and not one that is defined by other religions and religious cultures). What she says in this following paragraph, though, is simply Marxist praxis. But such concerns, in a hyper-capitalist industry and one where such ‘objectification’ definitely borders into the porn industry, do come off as quite a bit absurd.

    “This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape. These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce. The states trying to ban abortion are the states that have the highest proportions of black women living there. This is about class and race and is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve and are protected by under Roe vs. Wade.”

    “Our bodies, our choice.”

    But it is ‘absurd’ for a few different reasons. It is really a bad joke. Everything that she does serves ‘the male gaze’, and consumer capitalistic culture and economy, and simply in this she is in no sense free of the demands of the ‘patriarchy’. But why support that particular ‘patriarchy’ when another ‘patriarchy’ that really supports and values women in spiritual senses, and in the mother-sense, is demeaned?

    Though not likely opposed to being a mother nor to motherhood one can ask many different questions about her own ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’. But this leads directly into really large problems and a hornet’s nest of difficult issues.

    If she is really concerned about ‘the imposition of the male will’ on woman’s bodies and on her own body, it would seem that she must question her own choices — and her own situation — with a bit more rigor. If that is to be the question, then it could be put on the table for a more genuine examination.

    The idea that any person is really the owner of their own self, can be questioned. That is another topic of course, and not an easy one, but it is just as potentially true to assert that no person is really independent, in any sense, from their community. They cannot make independent choices. Their choices must be cooperative. This pseudo-Marxist ideal she works with breaks down people into ‘units’ and, it would seem, sets them up not for ‘freedom’ or ‘sovereignty’, but a disguised subservience and loss of power.

  8. Any thoughts on this?

    • My thought is that it is already illegal to murder children outside the womb. These conservative states are trying to make it illegal to murder children inside the womb.

      But to extemporize, the idea that pro-lifers are only trying to protect the unborn while doing nothing about the born is a terrible fallacy and simply false. I personally don’t like overarching government entities being responsible for taking care of the poor, the hungry, and the homeless. I think that matters should be handled as locally as possible. Just because I disagree on methods of how to help people doesn’t mean I don’t want to help, or that I don’t help, those in need.

      • “My thought is that it is already illegal to murder children outside the womb.’

        Tell that to the Democratic Governor of Virginia, if you can recognize him under the shoe polish. Just to refresh one’s recollection: if a child was born after a failed attempt at abortion, he said, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

        • Tell that to the Democratic Governor of Virginia, if you can recognize him under the shoe polish.

          Ouch!

          That is gonna leave a mark… of course, shoe polish usually does…

        • Yeah, that little tidbit is hard to forget. I’ve read plenty from philosophers and the like who follow the logic of abortion to say that we could “abort” even three- or four-year-olds, but it is quite astonishing to see a politician state it outright. And once that cat is out of the bag, we can only expect more of the same to follow.

  9. I performed an emergency surgery several months ago to treat a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. The patient could have died, but we were able to stabilize her and send her home the same day.

    She called my office this week in tears asking why we did not reimplant her pregnancy in her uterus, why did we not offer her this option. Because maybe her baby didn’t have to die.

    Pseudoscience is invading my operating room and my relationship with my patients. This poor woman had to have emergency surgery, and then grieved the loss of a pregnancy that was never viable, that could have killed her.

    And now she is grieving it again because politicians who lack even the most basic understanding of the physiology of pregnancy are dangling untruths in front of her and calling it fact.

    In case anyone reading this is wondering, THIS IS NOT A THING. It is NOT POSSIBLE to reimplant ectopic pregnancies into the uterus. These are NOT viable pregnancies, and all the wishing in the world, the magical thinking, the political grandstanding, will not make it so.

    And if you don’t know that, then you should not be writing laws about it.

    • If it helps any, the Catholic Church — perhaps the most vocal against abortion, and irrespective of whether anyone actually considers it a moral authority — agrees that treating the malfunctioning organ (in this case, the Fallopian tube) is licit, even knowing that the child will die from the treatment. This falls under the law of double effect. The child’s death is foreknown, but the intent is not to kill the child, but to treat the Fallopian tube, and thus this does not constitute to a direct abortion.

      Although, to add in the caveat, using abortion as the means to treat the Fallopian tube is not considered licit under Catholic bioethics. But removing the Fallopian tube (the risk of another ectopic pregnancy when there has been one is very high, so that is certainly a method to consider) with the child in it, and allowing the child to die, is not an abortion. So I think in the writing of laws, it should be understood that treating an ectopic pregnancy is valid. And also, if I understand correctly, the Alabama law did allow even for direct abortion to handle life-threatening situations like this one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.