Tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing will focus on a Mississippi 2018 law prohibiting elective abortions beyond 15 weeks. The decision could lead to the removal of abortion from the federal mandate, and its return to states. It is particularly alarming for those who favor federal control of this matter (i.e. the open season for baby-killing), such as US Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH.
In an online forum with New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation, a local reporter posed a question regarding public discussion of the subject. Shaheen replied:
“This infringement on women’s rights, on our privacy, on the attempt to have state control of our personal health, really is what we would see in an authoritarian state. It’s not what we would expect in New Hampshire … I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead — outlaw Roe vs. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people.”
Hard to know where to begin here, but let’s take it from the top.
Sen. Shaheen’s first expressed concern that a restriction on personal preference abortion impinges on women’s rights is curious. The abortion argument is fundamentally based on one’s belief about the time when life starts. Life begins when a father and mother unite to create a child. It is strictly considered an extra body part if it is delivered. The woman who carries it in her womb is allowed to discard it without restriction. It magically stops at birth, when it transforms from a parasitic clinger into an independent person who is self-sufficient and independent.
Privacy is next. I am unable to understand how prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks is a privacy violation. Given pop culture’s extreme affection for shouting its abortions as though it was a trophy hunt, keeping it on the QT has never been on any abortion aficionado’s agenda.
We now turn to “state control of our personal health.” Which, but of course, mandating everyone buy medical coverage insurance is not. This was not sarcasm. Alarmingly, Sen. Shaheen doesn’t know about the many laws and policies governing medical practice. These include matters that are completely unrelated to abortion. For instance, physician-assisted death is not the law. You can legally do it in some states and you cannot in others. It is, in short, a states’ rights matter. The 10th Amendment. Why, then, is the notion of the Supreme Court possibly saying abortion is a states’ rights issue anathema to pro-abortion people? As a side note, one of the safer political bets is that the New Hampshire and Mississippi state governments will seldom, if ever, march in lockstep, thus rendering the senator’s “it’s not what we would expect in New Hampshire” comment somewhat redundant.
As to Sen. Shaheen’s final comment … revolution? Really? Aside from a few full-time ranters screaming “my body my choice!” — COVID vaccination excluded — preening for lapdog media cameras, would there be any general public outcry? Does the idea of people having to choose not to have children using long-standing precautions against the same burden so much that it can’t be put on the table? This is the soft bigotry and low expectations.
Regardless of where one stands on abortion, the notion of Constitutional law taking precedence over flatulence-laced emotion shouldn’t be that hard to accept. We would all be happier if we stopped being governed by our emotions as a nation. Sen. Shaheen, however, prefers to fan partisan flames rather than a rational consideration of the Supreme Court case.
About Post Author
