Short Take: A Terrible Right

In 1992, Bill Clinton made the point succinctly, that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Aborting a fetus wasn’t a “good thing,” some sort of abstract virtue that should be applauded, even as some of the most twisted feministish voices “wished” they had had an abortion.

But as  hysteria whips up about the omnipresent Supreme Court partisan hacks reversing Roe v. Wade and Casey, this same conflation is being insinuated back into the battle. Or maybe it never really left the argument, and so it’s raising its ugly head again doesn’t make it onto the radar of the unduly passionate.

The first thing that should smack you upside the head is that Justice Ginsburg’s quote has been bastardized for the sake of inclusiveness, the only saving grace being that the ACLU didn’t use  ridiculous “birthing persons” as the current administration prefers. RBG spoke of women, which is no longer an acceptable word in the woke lexicon.

But putting this unsurprising affectation aside, the ACLU makes a more subtle, but more fundamental shift.

With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, we lost a champion for abortion and gender equality.

RBG was no champion of abortion. She was a champion of a woman’s right to choose abortion. Not that this will be comprehensible to many, but she was not a champion of “gender” equality either, but of women’s equality.

Is it no longer possible to understand that abortion is not a good thing, not a fun choice, not something to throw a party about? In the hysteria surrounding its perpetually predicted demise, must its proponents try to “reimagine” abortion as if it’s some bold and fierce act of defiance, the sort of thing that turns women into heroes?

As I’ve long said, I am a strong supporter of choice as a matter of sound public policy. It’s not that Roe v. Wade was a sound and well-reasoned Supreme Court opinion, holding that the criminalization of abortions violated a constitutional right. I’ve no doubt that criminalizing it was a terrible way to address this awful, but necessary, procedure, but that still doesn’t give rise to the stunning leap of creating a right out of thin air. But the Supreme Court did it, and it’s not as if they have created other doctrines from nothing (think qualified immunity), so I will respect the Court’s decision even if the rationale was a steaming pile of nonsense.

And now that Pandora’s Procedure has become a constitutional right, there is no going back to the days of fire and brimstone over a zygote, even if there might still be some room to tweak the details that Harry Blackmun made up in the dark of night in his lonely Mayo Clinic room. The pushback is now that the right to an abortion should prevail even as the baby emerges from the womb, which is probably the most insane and counterproductive argument to make, since no one outside of the seriously deluded would believe that’s where the line should be drawn.

Let’s not forget that abortion was never a good thing to do. Not for the woman who has to endure the procedure. Not for whatever you want to call the thing being aborted. The objective is to have as few abortions as possible. We need to stop the pretense that it’s only justifiable when pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mothers (birthing person?). Women get pregnant for a host of reasons, including that they screwed up, had sex and now have something growing down there. It’s not that abortion is a means of birth control, but a stop gap for the failure of birth control. The same rationale, that the choice belongs to someone and that someone is the person whose body carries the inchoate child, applies.

But this isn’t because anyone celebrates abortions. They’re horrible and it’s a shame it has to exist at all, no less be a battle where a woman finds herself torn between a choice she needs to make but abhors making. No one should be a champion of abortion. RBG wasn’t and the distorted presentation of the ACLU to the contrary is a lie that needs to be called out. Justice Ginsburg was a champion of a woman’s right to choose. In a better world, that choice would be exercised with the utmost of care, grave sadness and, as Clinton said, rarely.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 thoughts on “Short Take: A Terrible Right

  1. Elpey P.

    Apologies for drifting off the primary point (again), but it’s a pity how terfy the ACLU has become now that they are pandering to those who think people with a uterus should not be included as women if they don’t conform to their social expectations.

  2. Anonymous Coward

    The #ShoutYourAbortion movement differs with your belief that abortion is not celebrated. Lena Dunham’s well publicized regret over not getting an abortion is also a depressing indicator.
    Sadly a segment of the screaming Left has seized on abortion as a way to “own” their perceived enemies and taken what should be a solemn and private act and made a circus of it.

    1. SHG Post author

      I’m reliably informed by the scolds on twitter that it is improper to call women crazy because it was a word used to oppress women, so I shan’t call those women crazy because it would be wrong, even though they’re fucking crazy.

  3. Alan

    Safe, legal, and rare is my position as well, not that it matters since I’m a male-identifying penis-haver.

    However, I believe that human nature and teenage hormones being what they are, rare starts with realistic sex education. The huge overlap between the pro-life and anti-sex education or abstinence only positions has always seemed incoherent to me. Is there some parallel universe where teenagers consistently do what they’re told?

  4. Richard Kopf

    Scott,

    After years of handling abortion cases, and ruling for women, I declared I could no longer be objective to the state government of Nebraska. I therefore withdrew from such cases.

    See RECUSAL ORDER BY JUDGE KOPF REGARDING CIVIL CASES CHALLENGING THE REGULATION
    OF ABORTION (GENERAL ORDER NO. 2011-10) (“Compare Carhart v. Stenberg, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Neb. 1998) (Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion statute was unconstitutional), ajJ’d, 192 F.3d 1142
    (8th Cir. 1999), aff’d Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) with Carhart v.
    Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Neb. 2004) (the federal partial-birth abortion
    statute was unconstitutional), aff’d, Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791 (8th Cir.
    2005), rev’d, Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). I am honestly unable to
    provide a principled explanation as to why the Supreme Court affirmed the decision
    in the first case, but reversed the decision in the second one. My inability to do so
    troubles me greatly.) (available at https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/internetDocs/pom/orders/GO_2011-10.pdf)

    Abortion–early or late–is a profound act. Those cases tore my guts out. I applaud your post.

    All the best.

    RGK

    1. SHG Post author

      Among the many things I’ve learned from you, the burdens on a district judge of divining a rule from conflicting appellate decisions is a big one. I don’t envy the task.

  5. Jardinero1

    Several years ago, on another legal blog sometimes referenced here, an article was discussed, which was about the type of questions the Supreme Court Justices ask when the court is in session. It was a simple word count of how the Justices prefaced their questions. The prefaces fell neatly into the categories of who, what, why, how, when and where. Throughout their Supreme Court tenures, the Justices surveyed tended to stick to certain prefaces. Some were always about “how”, others always about “why”, others a combination two but almost never three different prefaces. What was really amazing was Justice Ginsburg. On something like 90 percent of her questions, she always began with “Who?” The other justices invoked “who”, hardly ever or never at all. I find this helps explain the incoherent mess which was Justice Ginsburg’s judicial record. Her philosophy can best be summed this way: When Justice Ginsberg asks “who”, it is because the Justice only needs to know “who”. Why is this? Because, she always takes care of her friends.

  6. John Barleycorn

    “..something growing down there…”

    Not even math-s can unpack this sort of tidy biological-s!

    Who knew.., can we do some chemistry-s next week? Please!!!

Comments are closed.