Abortion Decision
The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision which overturned Roe v. Wade. It was a decision almost as divisive as the original ruling. I found two major flaws with the original decision. First, it used a unique process to reach the decision that had never been used before and has never been used since. Second, it and subsequent supporting and modifying decisions all used imprecise – even “squishy” - language to describe constitutional rights not found anywhere in the constitution.
Violence and Demonstrations
On the rumor of violence and threats of violence that came following the release, the U.S. Senate passed a unanimous bill, introduced by Senator Chris Coons (D-Delaware) to provide security for Supreme Court Justices. It took two weeks for Nancy Pelosi to bring the bill to the floor in the House.
It is unlawful to demonstrate in front of any judge’s home or place of residence for the purpose of influencing a decision. Thus far, AG Merrick Garland, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and President Biden have failed to call for enforcing that law. This rather confirms what kind of Justice General Garland would have been.
Readiness to Absorb Change
One reason abortion has remained controversial since Roe v Wade was decided is that there was no consideration given to the readiness of society at large to absorb that much change at once. Compare that to the treatment of homosexuality in the military. It took less than 25 years to go from the Defense of Marriage Act to nationwide acceptance of same-sex marriage. The difference was interim steps.
When I retired from the US Army in 1990, I had a number of senior Generals and Admirals, as well as DoD Assistant Secretaries/Deputy Secretaries in my Rolodex. I had always been bothered by criminalization of homosexuality. Acts can be criminalized, not thoughts. If I want to rob a bank, no one can arrest me until I take action in furtherance of my wish. The Defense Department could criminalize whatever acts it wished, but criminalizing thought was simply wrong. I put together a cost-benefit analysis of doing away with criminalizing thought; others made other contributions. The upshot was Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. Today it is held in contempt, but it was a necessary step enroute to full acceptance.
There have already been violent attacks on pro-life groups and churches that oppose abortion. Not to mention an assassination attempt against Justice Kavanaugh. When President Biden finally addressed the violence, he blamed President Trump and his extremist supporters.
Justice Kavanaugh
When Kavanaugh was initially nominated for the Supreme Court, the last of the Legislative Branch institutions to survive partisanship was thrown under the bus by Senator Feinstein (D-CA.) Rather than use the Congressional Office that existed to quietly investigate sensitive issues regarding a nominee before a committee questions the individual, she elected to hold her accusations until the last minute. We saw Senator Jeff Flake chased into an elevator and assaulted by a group of pro-abortion enthusiasts. It was shameful, almost as shameful as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s veiled threats against Justices Kavanaugh and Alito.
I believe Bill Clinton got it right. “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” There are cases in which abortion is the right choice, such as Tay-Sachs and rape. I have my own belief about abortion, but for now will hold my peace. Something not widely known is that, while blacks are about 17% of the population, they represent 38% of all abortions. The “abortion industry” in the U.S. uses practices with a disproportionate impact on African-Americans.
Shame
It is shameful that the most powerful politicians in our country cannot find it within themselves to condemn attacks on churches and on clinics offering another option. That rather belies the label “pro-choice. The proper label is “pro-abortion.”
I myself support a full and unrestricted right to obtain an abortion, for any reason, up to the point of viability. Of course with medical advances enabling viability earlier and earlier in gestation, that point will need to be arbitrarily determined by legislatures.
But I've always despised the cowardice of abortion-rights advocates who try to pretend that an ugly reality is not an ugly reality. One not need to adhere to any dogma to recognize that abortion ends a life. Of course life begins at conception; a zygote is alive but it is not yet human; of course by the 12th week we have a recognizably-human child. I've always found it repugnant that abortion-rights advocates think that by using a Latin term--fetus--they can pretend we are not talking about, you know, a baby.
Something I do strongly believe is that a child is better off not to be born than to enter a life where extreme abuse will be inflicted--I read of horrific cases every day. It is also great cruelty to inflict a lifetime of medical suffering and helplessness on children who may have profound, incurable disabilities that prevent enjoyment of life.
But certainly any political party, or individuals, who treat abortion as equivalent to, say, getting a tumor removed are more than contemptible. I think there is no strong enough word for them.
The proper label has always been "pro-abortion," Bill, although we should have a label that properly describes how the majority of our citizens feel about abortion. They believe in setting limits, and allowing exceptions to those limits for rape, incest and the safety of the mother.
When I finished four years as an analyst in the USAF Security Service, my first civilian job in 1965 was as an apprentice newspaper reporter. Back then, the standard at most papers was to use anti-abortion and pro-abortion.
I suspect you are old enough to have seen many forays into a "Brave New Warping" of our beloved language, including the renaming of the War Department.