Abortion is no laughing matter. Yet progressives have set themselves up for a truly staggering amount of ridicule as they depart further from reality and rationality with each day that passes since a draft of a Supreme Court opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the media. The left’s reaction to the draft authored by Justice Samuel Alito – which may or may not actually become an official ruling – provides a profound lesson in human nature. The Herculean task of defending the indefensible will cause many to lose their grip on logic and reason. Their objections will burst through the narrow confines of the issue in question, spilling over into, and conflating, all manner of barely relevant facts, beliefs, fears, and circumstances. One could describe this as a “kitchen sink” defense – throw in every conceivable argument to find out which, if any, resonates with one’s adversaries.
Social media platforms and traditional news media outlets are juggling an ever-growing list of dire consequences that are sure to befall the American people should the Supreme Court settle on a ruling that overturns the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. That list is already such an absurdity, one cannot help but wonder what more apocalyptic repercussions could be dreamed up.
Debunking the Pro-Abortion Argument
The issue, in this case, is whether a woman has the right to seek an abortion and, by extension, whether she has the right to deny life to an unborn child. Every argument the pro-abortion side employ to defend these supposed rights is easily countered. Rather than a fetus being a mere “clump of cells,” as progressives often insist, scientific advances continue to prove that life in the womb begins at an earlier stage than previously supposed. And, of course, a great many people will argue with certainty that life begins at conception.
That a woman has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body is another argument fraught with contradiction and weak spots. Unless one is willing to practice semantic jiu jitsu with the 14th Amendment, no “right” to abortion is guaranteed by the US Constitution. This, of course, brings up a related issue; if upholding the long-disputed Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade is about protecting constitutional rights, which is another of the left’s claims, then there would surely be bipartisan enthusiasm for protecting First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights – none of which these same left-wingers are at all anxious to defend.
The ”my body, my choice” position, though, was finally torpedoed by the enthusiasm with which leftists supported COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates. The very idea that any person had the right to choose whether to wear a mask or get vaccinated was lambasted by the majority of progressives – often in the most vicious and hateful fashion. Individual choice, it must be stated, is not a favored concept on the political left. Personal rights, Americans were told, are neither relevant nor tolerated when they stand in the way of the “common good.”
The Kitchen Sink
And so, bereft of any reasonable or intellectual defense of abortion, progressives gathered up their most emotional talking points, boarded their Disney cruise ship of dogma, and set sail from the port of logic, out onto the ocean of inanity.
Among the many and varied adverse – and completely irrational – reactions to the Supreme Court leak was California Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell’s warning that “The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage.” The Congressman made no attempt to explain how interracial marriage and abortion are in any way connected and was promptly called out by a couple of black Republicans. Perhaps Mr. Swalwell should have run his inartful Twitter post by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, both of whom would be key players in any supposed attempt to introduce such a ban – and both of whom are married to women of other races.
An equally bizarre red herring came out of the White House on May 4 when Joe Biden appeared to suggest to reporters that overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to LGBTQ children being barred from schools. “What happens if you have changes in the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children?” Mr. Biden asked. Again, no logical thread of commonality between abortion and this entirely imaginary scenario was offered.
The fantastical suppositions about what may unfold, should the justices in Washington, DC, rule the way most people now expect them to are almost without end. To recount them all here might be hilarious, but it would become tiresome. At some point, Liberty Nation would simply run out of server space. One particular reaction, though, cannot go unmentioned – which is why the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters website has preserved it for posterity.
Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of daytime TV show, The View, completely lost her mind on May 3, yelling outlandish statements about the prospect of abortion becoming a state-level issue – which is what nixing Roe would do, contrary to the left’s claim that it means the de facto banning of abortion in the US.
After belaboring the point that terminating a pregnancy is the hardest decision a woman could ever make – which seems to directly contradict the left’s unbridled and very public enthusiasm for the procedure – Goldberg made the most astounding and, frankly, appalling claim of the debate so far: “You are not the person to make that decision,” she boomed, referring generally to anyone who is apparently claiming authority to make decisions for her. “My doctor, and myself, and my child, that’s who makes the decision.”
Yes, that is worth reading again. Ms. Goldberg, it seems, thinks the child is one of the people who gets to decide whether he or she is aborted. Interestingly, that’s an admission by Goldberg that we are talking about children, rather than clumps of cells. How the unborn child would participate in this specific decision-making process is not clear – much less why there would be any uncertainty, on that child’s part, about whether he or she would want to live.
The Crisis Gambit
Is it appropriate to make light of the subject being so hotly debated, here? Perhaps not. We are talking, after all, about the right to life of those not able to defend that right for themselves. The hysterical way in which the pro-abortion lobby is flailing wildly to defend its position is – beneath its comical surface – a very serious and chilling glimpse into the mind of the modern American progressive. Rather than focus on “a woman’s right to choose” or, perhaps, the very rare health-related justifications for abortion, these people have chosen to create an entirely artificial cultural crisis. Why? Because that is always the plan. It is always the way in which the left tries to achieve its goals. Women’s rights being defended by the same people who refuse to define a woman and who celebrate the crushing of female athletes by their male “transwoman” competitors? Not at all. James Madison said, “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.” For the left – just six months away from a likely midterm election shellacking – the leak from the Supreme Court is simply the ideal pretext for another crisis.