“Revolution” Threatened if Roe vs Wade Is Overturned

AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding a 2018 Mississippi law banning elective abortions after 15 weeks. The case could potentially remove abortion from a federal mandate and return it to individual states depending on the decision. This is most alarming to those preferring federal control (i.e., open baby-killing season) of the matter, for example, 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. At its core, the abortion argument rests on whether one believes life begins at conception or delivery. If life begins at conception through the union of a mother (egg) and father (sperm), the result is an independent life regardless of gestation period. If instead, it is delivery, that thing within the womb is strictly an additional body part. Thus, the woman carrying it inside her is free to dispose of it with all the consideration due a fingernail. This magically ends at the moment of birth when the hitherto parasitical clinger instantly transforms into a full-blown, self-sufficient, independent life form waving bye-bye to all parental units as it hits the streets ready to RAWK.

Next up, privacy. Precisely how forbidding elective abortion after 15 weeks involves a privacy violation escapes me. 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. (For the benefit of the coffee-deprived, that was sarcasm.) Sen. Shaheen is alarmingly unaware of the myriad of laws governing medical practice and policies already on the books, covering matters utterly unconnected to abortion. For example, doctor-assisted suicide is not the law of the land. It is legal in some states, illegal in others. It is, in short, a states’ rights matter. That pesky 10th Amendment, etc. 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? Is the notion of requiring people preferring to avoid pregnancy using the long-available precautions against same so burdensome it cannot be placed on the table? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations in action.

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. If we as a nation stopped governing by feeling, we would all be better off. However, logic and reason are immediately discarded whenever abortion is discussed, so it comes as no surprise that Sen. Shaheen prefers fanning partisan flames over a reasoned consideration of the upcoming Supreme Court case.