The Day – Blumenthal and Murphy escalate the culture war with hysteria
Abortion and gender dysphoria are serious issues that deserve serious discussion. But you would never know by listening to the two US senators from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. They only offer hysteria to excite their followers, fanning the flames of culture war.
According to Blumenthal, the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision reversing its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade “would be a horrifying moment inflicting a huge leap backwards with incalculable cost and chaos for countless women and their families. … Overturning Roe v. Wade would leave American women abandoned and alone.”
Eh? “Incalculable costs and chaos” because the states and Congress would regain the power to legislate abortion through the ordinary democratic process? Blumenthal gives the impression that nine unelected judges are plotting to fix abortion law nationwide when in fact they are preparing to to renouncer the judiciary to do so.
And how would reversing Roe leave women “abandoned and alone” while retaining all of their other constitutional and statutory rights? If every woman in the country stood up to support the codification of abortion rights, those rights would be codified everywhere. These rights are not codified by some states and by Congress precisely because many women disagree with Blumenthal’s abortion bigotry, not because they are “abandoned and alone.”
Few protests against the court’s proposed decision involve the question currently before the court: what does the Constitution require? Indeed, few people other than serious lawyers and journalists have even read the draft decision and its dozens of footnote references. Almost all of the protests against the proposed ruling involve something entirely different: what should abortion policy be? Most of those protesting the proposed ruling seem to think the Constitution requires whatever they want and prohibits whatever they don’t.
Some people argue that the court should not overturn precedents. Yet the court has often done so, as with the odious precedent for racial segregation, Plessy v. Ferguson. This precedent stood for 58 years before being overturned, nine years longer than the Roe decision was in effect, and Plessy’s adaptation to the overthrow was far more disruptive than would be the adaptation to the overthrow of Roe.
As a policy rather than a law, Roe may well have gotten abortion – that it should be left to the individual before fetal viability, after which the state has a legitimate interest in legislating , including legislating to protect the life of the unborn child.
Short of saving a woman’s life in the midst of a rare complication, there is no good reason to abort after viability. After all, this is the age of free contraception, free morning-after pills, free abortion before fetal viability, and free delivery of unwanted babies to hospital emergency rooms.
While some states seem keen on banning abortion, in the long run, with democracy working on the issue, the policy outlined in Roe might make sense to most people and be legislated by most states and Congress.
Some people call the Roe inversion “radical”. But far more radical is post-viability abortion, which has in fact become legal by court order almost everywhere in the country.
Last month, opponents of abortion somehow seized a medical waste truck carrying the mutilated corpses of aborted late-term fetuses at a clinic in Washington, D.C. Photos of the corpses were published. If the corpses had been found in a devastated street in Mariupol, no one, except perhaps Vladimir Putin, would deny their humanity and that a right to life would have been unduly violated.
As for Senator Murphy, he denounces as “bullies” anyone who will not follow the transgender movement with him.
He accuses transgender students of being barred from participating in sports. But they remain free to participate in sports for their biological sex. He complains that transgender students are not allowed to use toilets that match their gender identity. But that’s just a matter of long-standing sexual privacy and safety. He complains about attempts to ban sex reassignment therapy for minors. But such therapy often has adverse consequences that minors cannot fully assess.
Raising these objections to the transgender is not “bullying”. It’s controversy. The bully here is Murphy himself.