America’s abortion war on women

It’s really not quite that simple:

Moreover, as tempting as it is to think of Ivey, the executioner’s friend, as a monster who happens to be female – in which the worst qualities of Agatha Trunchbull, Dolores Umbridge and Margaret Atwood’s Aunt Lydia manifest as a homely-looking 74-year-old – she runs a state in which a majority of both sexes oppose abortion rights.
Nationally, the slight gender differences on abortion choice have been related by one US pollster, Celinda Lake, to religious faith. “Women are more religious than men, and so women are slightly less pro-choice than men.”

Yes, yes, however. Democracy. Isn’t it supposed to be the people who make the law?

11 thoughts on “America’s abortion war on women”

  1. Come on,Tim. It’s only supposed to be the People who make the law when they do what the elite wants. Otherwise the People are no-nothings who don’t know what they’re voting for and must vote again until they give the “right” result.

  2. With the added bonus that the US federal government in Washington DC sees the whole argument about “states rights” as having been resolved during the 1861-1865 bun fight, thus any meaningful actions by individual states acting independently need to be ignored or silenced to appease the voters in California and New York.

    States acting collectively against the wisdom of Dee Cee need to feel the wrath of constitutional lawfare.

    😐

    I can’t say I agree with Alabama’s position on abortion (seems a bit 1950’s to me), but I do acknowledge that they have the right to do as they have done and the Alabama demos seems to support their own politicians.

    Roe v Wade was a bad decision, not because women shouldn’t have access to abortion if necessary, but it was decided on the wrong basis for the wrong reasons and has simply polarised and poisoned the debate since it was decided.

    If the US constitution is to mean anything then it has to be “exactly what it says on the tin”, otherwise we’re down to interpretation which just becomes an excuse for cronyism and “making shit up” as we go.

    But if you take that approach then most of the laws passed since the New Deal would have to be repealed for being in violation of the constitution.

  3. Robert Bork wrote of Roe v Wade that its majority judgment contained no legal reasoning. I found that a rather bold claim, so I read it. And he was right. It’s an apparently learned history of abortion through the ages, and it contains no legal reasoning.

  4. The main problem I have with Roe v Wade is that it is the most blatant example of judicial activism by the SCOTUS and if that can be overturned on the grounds of having no basis in constitutional law (which is a pretty accurate assessment by Robert Bork @Ed), then many of the courts more recent decisions can be.

    Many of the SCOTUS decisions during the late 20th and early 21st century are more about legalistic post-rationalisation of the partisan “liberalism” of the left rather than the neutral and dispassionate judgement that the court is meant to deliver.

    I don’t blame Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her views on the subject, but she has no place on the SCOTUS while holding those views and should certainly have been removed for giving such bias judicial expression.

  5. If ever classical statuary records this historic triumph over human decency

    The Guardian thinks burning a helpless unborn baby with chemicals, chopping it up like human sashimi, then hoovering his tiny broken body out of the mother’s womb and dumping it in an incinerator (or selling it) is… human decency.

    Hours after criminalising abortion, Ivey ruled that the life of a convicted murderer, Michael Samra, was not sufficiently precious for her to feel like saving it.

    This is what progressives actually believe.

    An unborn child has no right to live, but a man who planned and executed the cold-blooded murder of four innocent people, in which he shot a woman to death and then slit the throat of her terrified 7-year-old daughter while she screamed for her dead Mommy, deserves to be kept alive at the taxpayers expense for the rest of his natural.

    Progressivism is the complete inversion of everything that’s healthy, normal and sane. They really are evil.

  6. Can’t ever be arsed to phone in but one of those virtue signalling SJW radio presenters was saying the usual thing about men having no say over abortion as men have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I want to ask him if he would be ok with a woman aborting at 32 weeks. Or 34. Or one day before the baby is due.

    He was trying to paint the thing as an attack on women in the US, ignoring the fact that 36% of women support the changes.

  7. The abortion lobby (I think it should be legal, but is to be avoided wherever possible) always bring up children who are the result of ‘rape or incest’. Rape (even in its elastic modern definition) accounts for <1% of abortions, incest ~0%.

  8. Former President Bill Clinton famously said he wanted to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”, but instead the US seems to be in the position of it being “dangerous, imposed and frequent”.

    While I disagree with Roe v Wade AND the laws passed by the various state legislatures, I DO AGREE that it is time to revisit the reality of the law as it is implemented and interpreted across the US.

  9. ‘Intensifying campaigns to criminalise all abortion in the US have been summarised, accurately, as a war on women’

    Intensifying? Says who? War?

    ‘one that calls on women to, as the presidential contender Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has put it, “fight like hell”.’

    Cirrusly? Anyone citing plastic banana Gillibrand can be immediately dismissed.

    ‘Contender?’ That’s just funny.

    There is a problem. The U.S. press is so left that no information on state legislative actions is available, only leftist propaganda. As
    Catherine Bennett provides here. Internet searches for Alabama abortion law brings forward nothing but leftist hyperbole.

  10. Chris – Rape (even in its elastic modern definition) accounts for [less than] 1% of abortions, incest ~0%.

    It’s like how trannies use the 0.01% of genetic unfortunates born with both sets of leisure organs as a reason why it’s completely normal for 40something blokes with wives and kids to slather on clown makeup and stripper boots and declare themselves laydeees.

    Come to think of it, progressives also believe that men should have no say on the human rights of the unborn – even their own children – because it’s a wimmins issue, but it’s also OK for men to put on a bra and knock the shit out of girls in women’s sports.

    Maybe only General Pinochet should have the right to determine the legality of giving lefties free skydiving lessons. His helicopter, his choice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *