Friday, January 13, 2006

Pro-Choice States For the Pro-Life Crowd

I second Atrios’ amazement at those who imagine that an overturned Roe decision would leave abortion to a state-by-state thing.  As if the pro-life crowd would just pack up and go home once Alito casts that final vote.  The only way to believe that is to completely misunderstand what these people are about.  Sure, they use “State’s Rights” as their official argument (or at least the smarter ones do), but that’s an obvious fraud.  I’m sure some of them are for State’s Rights, but the rest of them just like the rhetoric of it.  How else to explain why they’re against State’s Rights for many other things?  Like medical marijuana and other such things.  They use State’s Rights when they need it, and abandon it when they don’t.  Just like everything else.  Because they don’t care about these overarching principles, they just want what they want and will say anything to get it.

And then there’s the issue of “Baby Killing”.  If they believe the pro-choice position to be evil and wicked, they’d be just as bad if they allowed abortions in NY and CA.  If you believed something was excessively wrong, would it rectify things if you knew that it was only happening in the “bad” states?  Were the abolitionists ok with slavery in only the slave states?  Of course not.  They won’t stop with Roe.  Roe is the beginning.  Abolition of all abortion is the end.  Not just in their state, but in all the states. That’s what this is about.  And as soon as Roe is overturned, they will start to work immediately with a national ban, and it will be everything all over again.  And we’d know this, if we were just willing to listen to what they’re saying.

And that’s the weirdest thing about the standard beliefs many liberals have towards conservatives.  They believe them when they shouldn’t, and don’t take them seriously when they should.  But it’s easy to know the difference.  Their rhetoric is always empty and shallow, and their beliefs are always solid and deep.  And to know that is to know them.

2 comments:

K. Ron Silkwood said...

I believe that our Chump-in-Chief was appointed in 2000 by the Supreme Court because the Republican Party didn't like the way things were shaking out with the way the State of Florida was going to recount.

Have people forgotten already all the discussion of a proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion?

When these people say they are going to do something nasty, one best believe them.

Dan said...

I'm a third to this idea. I think it's part of why Bush's justice department started testing the courts by overriding Oregon's medicinal use laws and such. They'll be ready with plenty of precedent when Roe gets overturned.

Also, the manner in which Roe gets overturned will be significant. If the court rules somehow that there is no inherent right to privacy in the constitution, then we are back to pre-Roe days, and the big national fight to criminalise abortion.

IF though, they rule that foetus' are human beings with the inherent rights to life, liberty and SUVs with Yellow ribbon stickers on them, then there won't even need to be a national law enacted, or a constitutional ban or any such thing. Abortion would then immediately become murder, and be prosecutable the same as infanticide...the justice department would arrest and lay murder charges the very next day on a few abortion providers.