If there are objective, legitimate, valid, ethical and legal arguments against overturning Roe v. Wade, why can’t the Axis of Unethical Conduct ( “the resistance,” a.k.a. (when Trump isn’t involved), anti-democracy progressive ideologues/ Democrats/ mainstream media) make them?
Since the leak, the desperate and furious fans of abortion have become increasingly unmoored to reason, resulting in disgusting mix of hysteria and dishonesty that is even more frightening than the usual Leftist freakout. And it is getting worse.
On the media side, the objective appears to dumb down the argument and allow emotion to persuade members of the public who lack the knowledge and skills to answer the question, “What’s going on here?” For example:
- MSNBC’s Ali Velshi and The New Yorker writer Sheelah Kolhatkar used Velshi’s show yesterday to criticize the Alito draft opinion for “talking about the Constitution” too much. Referring to the exchange between Sen. Tim Scott and Janet Yellen in a Senate hearing that saw Scott arguing that Yellen’s justifying abortion on the grounds of increased labor force participation was“callous,” Velshi said that Yellen’s position “an element of what we have taken as freedom for this country. That a woman gets to, sort of, decide when she starts the career, when she ends the career, and how her career advances. That’s not callous, that’s–that’s– just fact.”
She gets to decide as long as that “choice” doesn’t require killing somebody. That’s the part of the equation that abortion advocates deliberately deny. Velshi went on saying, “The data is the data. And, of course, you can have moral differences about abortion. We all understand that, but the justices who signed this draft opinion and obviously some members of Congress did not even consider or acknowledge the data that reveals how this will affect women.”
The Supreme Court ‘s job is not to decide what the law should be. It decides what the law is, beginning with the Constitution. Roe v.Wade and Dobbs are constitutional cases: the economy has nothing to do with how SCOTUS must evaluate them.
Then Kolhatkar commented, referring to the draft opinion, “You know, they spend 98 pages of their draft opinion talking about the Constitution, they talk about conception, and the right to life but there’s almost nothing about what this will look like in society other than a very cursory throwaway line about how there is widespread access to childcare, contraception, and paid family leave.” This is journalistic malpractice, adding to the public’s deplorable ignorance about what the Court’s role is. Those “throwaway lines” are called dicta; they are not part of an opinion’s substance, and properly so. Access to childcare, contraception, and paid family leave does not make abortion more or less of a constitutional right. It might suggest that a Constitutional amendment or news laws are needed, but those can’t be created by the Court.
- On CBS Mornings, Gayle King interviewed Senator John Thune, the GOP Senate Minority Whip, as if she were actively trying to misinform viewers. “He says the Democratic push to enshrine a right to an abortion into federal law goes too far and is out of step with most Americans,” King said. “But just last week, a CBS News poll found that 64% of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.”
As usual on this topic, deceit. Ethics Alarms had discussed the polls. First of all, about 90% of the public (or more) don’t know what overturning Roe means; the hysterical reaction of the abortion lobby has them thinking that abortion would be outlawed nationally. Second, polls also show that most Americans do not support the provisions in the grandstanding Democratic bill just defeated in the Senate, which went far beyond what Roe permits. Third, the Supreme Court doesn’t decide by polls, or we’d have had Jim Crow and school segregation for another decade or more, and police would still be able to charge defendants when incriminating evidence was found with warrantless searches.
Never mind: Fact Don’t Matter. She asked Thune, “You voted against [the bill] to codify Roe v. Wade. Why did you vote that way? What was your thinking?” He replied that the bill did not codify Roe, a factual explanation that seemed to bounce off the head of Oprah’s “gal-pal” like golf balls off a tank. Then, later in the interview, King’s co-host Dana Jacobson said, “We hear so much about, as you talk about, when does life begin? There’s a lot of talk of what the rights are of be it a fetus, be it an unborn child, however you refer to that. What about the women and the families that we’re talking about and their rights, too? How do you balance that in the consideration?”
Now there’s an illuminating question. [Insert sarcasm imoji here] What it mostly illuminates is the contempt so much of the media has for the matter of the other human being in the abortion equation. ‘We keep hearing all this talk,’ like these are rumors of Big Foot or flying saucers. “However you refer to that.” The right to life, as in continuing to live, is enshrined in the Declaration and the Constitution as well as law. So is the right to conceive a child. The draft ruling by Alito isn’t balancing anything, though balancing a right to live against any claimed right not in the Constitution is an easy call: the Constitutional right wins. What rights of “women and the families” is Jacobson referring to? Presumably it is the ‘right” to end the life of the gestating child in the womb, but CBS won’t actually say that….sounds wrong, somehow.
But Gayle King was a model of rationality compared to Yale law students, many of whom freaked out on Instagram with considerable support. First year law student Shyamala Ramakrishna accused campus conservatives of being “conspirators in the Christo-fascist political takeover we all seem to be posting frantically about.” Why are they still “coming to our parties” and “laughing in the library” without “unrelenting daily confrontation?” she asked. “It’s not time for ‘reform,’” classmate Leah Fessler wrote. “Democratic Institutions won’t save us.” Yet another first year student tagged on, “Neither the constitution nor the courts—nor the fucking illusion of ‘democracy’—are going to save us. How can we possibly expect a document, drafted by wealthy, white, landowning men, to protect those who face marginalization that is the direct result of the very actions of the founders?”
Good job there, Yale!
You’re on, Geena!
Addendum (I forgot to include this): At the many protest rallies around the nation yesterday, a prominent sign was the ineffably obnoxious, “No Uterus, No Opinion.” When your arguments are weak, the last resort is to forbid anyone from disagreeing with you. Perfect.