When it comes to Roe v. Wade—and everything else—I am pro-choice. I believe everyone should be free to choose how they live their lives. But no one has the right to deny others their ability to choose. My body, my choice? Yes. Destroying another’s body inside yours? Absolutely not. Your choice is your choice. Their choice is to LIVE.
No one has the right to end another life in the name of choice or freedom or privacy or any other tortured word used to justify killing for convenience.
Birth control is for birth control. Abortion, by and large, is for consequence avoidance. Planned Parenthood is almost exclusively for profit. The Supreme Court is for interpreting the Constitution, not contorting it to create rights.
If it overturns Roe v. Wade, the choice of restricting or allowing abortion returns to the states. If this happens, voters get to decide whether and how to allow abortion. It’s called democracy. Everyone’s free to choose, but all choices carry consequences. Children are blessings. If not for mothers AND fathers seeking abortions—for those who desperately want them.
Abortion restriction as punishment
As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments over the Mississippi abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a common rallying cry of pro-choice activists is that any restriction on abortion is a “punishment on women.” The logic is that abortion is a natural “consequence” of unwanted pregnancy rather than pregnancy being the natural consequence of sex.
The truth is that Roe v. Wade creates absurd piles of profit for Planned Parenthood. PP pretends to be interested in women’s health, but provides only single-digit percentages of non-abortion services. According to their own 2019-2020 Annual Report, 96.9 percent of pregnant women use their services to get an abortion. 0.7 percent seek adoption referrals, and 2.4 percent go for prenatal care of any kind.
Planned Parenthood’s business model is reliant on abortion on demand and unfettered by red-state restrictions. This is why they deploy activists to rally during Supreme Court abortion cases and to vilify justice nominees like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It’s also why they push empty arguments about why women need abortion access to ensure equity with men.
Their side’s opening arguments last week amounted to nothing more than you can’t take back what you already gave us with Roe v. Wade. They didn’t offer substantive logical or moral arguments because they have none.
I’d like to see the Court confronted by women (and men) who deal daily with post-abortion consequences like sadness, guilt, shame and emotional baggage that never truly goes away.
Speaking of stench
If this happened, perhaps even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who recently questioned an unborn baby’s ability to feel pain and compared a fetus to a brain-dead patient, would see the issue through a passionate rather than political lens.
Justice Sotomayor also said that reversing landmark rulings that reinforce abortion rights would damage the court’s reputation. During arguments, she said, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible.”
How morally cloudy has this issue become? We have a staunchly liberal Supreme Court justice warning us about public perception regarding constitutionalism. A more essential question is this: How will America survive the stench of leading the world in killing its unborn in the name of freedom?
The Mississippi case is an opportunity to overturn a tenuous and tortured precedent set by activist justices. It’s also America’s chance to recover a shred of decency by de-nationalizing a barbaric and selfish stain on our national conscience.
