Today’s Intellectually Dishonest Dobbs Leak Freakout: “A Lot Of Powerful People Seem To Have No Clue What Motherhood Means” (Washington Post)

You have to admit, the pro-abortion hysterics and fanatics are doing a bang-up job proclaiming their fury at the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may be about to strike down Roe v. Wade without making anything that hints of a good faith argument on the merits. The latest example of this massive exercise in “appeal to emotion” and “let’s keep the American public as dumb as we can, all the better to manipulate them” is an op-ed by Monica Hesse, the Washington Post’s resident gender bigot. Previously, Ethics Alarms had highlighted her fantasy that Mary, Donna Reed’s character in “It’s A Wonderful Life,” is the “real hero” of the classic (Right–she’s the one who gave up her chance at al education and a career to save her father’s rinky-dink savings and loan so Bedford Falls didn’t become a cesspool under the thumb of the richest and meanest man in town) and this article attacking the Trump White House Christmas decorations and using them to excoriate Melania Trump for existing, sneering that any one who referred to Trump’s First Lady as “elegant” meant it as a code word for “White.” Yes, she’s a race bigot too. I would no more have sampled a Hesse column in the Post than tried a fried centipede as a snack, except the Ann Althouse pointed me to it.

[A side note regarding Ann: she’s written 14 posts including the May 2 entry in which she reported on the leak and proclaimed the looming cancellation of Roe “a calamity.” She has never explained why she thinks it’s a calamity, although in 2006 she opined on what the results of Roe going down might be. She’s a law professor, and her blog has no borders, like this one, which is constrained to examine ethics only. Those 14 posts cover everything from her usual linguistic nit-picking to musing about the leak, but there is no explanation of the “calamity” verdict. That’s irresponsible, and, frankly, cowardly. But I digress.]

Here’s the crux of Hesse’s argument, if you can call it that: the supply chain-triggered shortage in baby formula shows how cruel and ignorant the Supreme Court majority is. She writes,

With particularly dystopian flair, the formula shortage came to a head around the same time that a draft opinion leaked from the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. On one hand, women would be forced to birth children. But on the other hand, once those children arrive, there might not be food to feed them.

A footnote from Samuel Alito’s draft opinion that gained some traction this week was about adoption. The footnote quoted a 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had noted that the “domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.” The inclusion of the study in an opinion that would overturn Roe seemed to suggest that there was no need to have an abortion as there were plenty of American couples who wanted children but not enough American babies for them to adopt.

This was immediately pounced on by critics who noted the broodmare implications. Women, it seemed, should remain pregnant not only because abortion is evil, but also because the deserving couples of Gilead need them to provide children.


  • I don’t think she’s read the opinion! The draft is not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, and says so explicitly. It is anti-“making up a constitutional right without sound jurisprudence and taking an important public policy issue out of the hands of the public and elected state representatives.”
  • “Dystopian flair” and Gilead reference “The Handmaiden’s Tale.” Doing that is signature significance for a pundit who doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, and who lacks the knowledge and integrity to debate abortion fairly. It is in the same category as Mia Farrow claiming that Republicans would like to install Sharia Law (Item#5)
  • “Women would be forced to birth children” is either deceit or a lie; who can tell with a writer this sloppy and unscrupulous? Using that sentence in the same paragraph as the “Handmaiden’s Tale” reference deliberately implies that without Roe women will be forced by law to become pregnant and ultimately to give birth. Like the rest of her ilk, Hesse can’t discuss abortion’s real issues and conflicts intelligently or effectively, so she distorts the topic out of all recognition.
  • “But on the other hand, once those children arrive, there might not be food to feed them.” She even sinks to the “kill them for their own good” trope. Shameless.
  • No, the inclusion of the abortion study in the draft does not suggest that there was no need to have abortions, but that there was another option available to mothers not wanting to be burdened with a child than snuffing its life out in the womb. 
  • To return to the headline for a second: that being a mother is “hard” is 100% irrelevant to the abortion issue, as well as to Alito’s draft.  One of Ann’s readers writes, “Amy Coney Barrett has no idea how hard pregnancy is on a body, and if she did, she would see that a right to abortion is guaranteed right there in the US Constitution.” Barrett has birthed five children.
  • Again, Alito makes no representation that “abortion is evil,” but Facts Don’t Matter” to progressive ideologues like Hess.

Apparently, they also don’t matter enough to papers that employ columnists like her, either.

11 thoughts on “Today’s Intellectually Dishonest Dobbs Leak Freakout: “A Lot Of Powerful People Seem To Have No Clue What Motherhood Means” (Washington Post)

  1. I saw an analogy an abortion recently that I would like your take on.

    Someone analogized an unplanned pregnancy to gambling at a casino. Just like when you gamble at a casino, you know there’s a chance you are going to lose money (probably a high chance), when you have sex, there’s almost always a chance you could get pregnant. Unless you are flat out infertile or too old, having sex (even with protection) still runs the risk of producing a child. That’s just how it works.

    The only way to avoid any risk of pregnancy is to not have vaginal sex, just like the only way to ensure you never lose money gambling is to not gamble.

    I think that’s a plausible argument (even if the analogy isn’t perfect) because pregnancy is a foreseeable risk to having vaginal sex. Without protection it’s a bigger risk, but it’s still a risk nonetheless.

    So this whole “forced birth” thing is really trying to detach the act of sex from the natural consequences of sex, namely, children. One could even argue it’s a fight against the natural order. Even though it’s clearly foreseeable that sex could lead to a child, pro-choicers don’t think they bear any responsibility for that consequence.

    What’s your take on the casino analogy?

    • Not bad. Sex is a gamble, and if you lose, you are responsible for the consequences. There are, in fact, many ways to virtually ensure that vaginal sex doesn’t result in pregnancy: maximum birth control (pill plus IUD plus condom); tubal ligation; hysterectomy,abstinence. All come with odds, and it is fair to expect a woman to know what those odds are.

    • The only problem with the casino analogy is that both men and women can gamble, and both men and women can lose. Only women can get pregnant. And I wonder if deep down, that is what pro-abortion women are really so angry about, or refuse to acknowledge, etc. They want to freely engage in behavior in which the inherent risk of pregnancy falls to them without having to bear any consequence for that behavior.

      My imperfect analogy is going out in the sun. Everyone can go out in the sun if they choose. Some, however, are more prone to the harmful effects than others; myself included. Knowing that I am prone to skin cancer, I have choices to make. I can wear protection and be vigilant about it or I can not be in the sun at all. I mitigate my risks of getting skin cancer by taking personal responsibility for my actions. Is it fair that others can be out all day, get a gorgeous tan and never have a problem while I simply can’t? Perhaps. That’s life, buttercup.

      • That makes sense, which is why I think a lot of liberal women are at war with reality. I think deep down, they want to be men (not literally, but metaphorically). Ruther Bader Ginsburg basically said as much when she argued that a woman cannot be truly free unless she can choose whether or not to be pregnant. That’s not how nature works. That’s not how reality works, and the only way to sleep with yourself at night is to say the fetus isn’t a person.

        I’ve told liberals that I personally wouldn’t have designed reproduction the way it is if I were God, but I am not God, so I’m sure I would do it worse even if I think I could do it better.

        Your illustration about the sun is a perfect point. The left doesn’t want to accept the limitations of reality. They see unequal outcomes and believe it has to be because of something sinister even though people start from different places, have different natural abilities, and even different levels of motivation.

        We could hypothetically create a society where everyone starts at the same place and is given the same opportunities, and we would still have unequal outcomes. Even today, where pretty much every kid gets to go to public school and most people now have regular access to the internet, where pretty much everyone could get an associate’s degree at a junior college without any debt (pell grants), we still have unequal outcomes.

    • Don’t be silly. Abortion proponents with young offsping, say under 9 or 10 months or so (you can’t be really human if you can’t walk, right?) can offer them up for the homeless to eat. Why waste the protein?.
      Additional benefits would be a reduction in the need for planet-destroying factory farm meat production, and the freeing up of supplies of baby formula for use by those who consider their children worth keeping, and possibly even human.

  2. “Amy Coney Barrett has no idea how hard pregnancy is on a body, and if she did, she would see that a right to abortion is guaranteed right there in the US Constitution.”

    That is some Hall of Fame non-sequitur work right there!

    It’s also physically difficult to lift an elderly person over your head. Does that mean the Constitution guarantees a right to feed your grandma into a wood chipper?

    • Only a liberal with a college degree could say something so absurd. I’m sure they’ve probably also said Clarence Thomas doesn’t understand the black experience in America either.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.

%d bloggers like this: