Wading Into The Abortion Issue

Executive Director’s Corner

Dear All:

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court’s initial draft of a majority opinion of Roe v. Wade was leaked to and published by Politico.  According to Politico:

“The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision — Planned Parenthood v. Casey — that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The PFIR organization has long been a proponent of Roe v. Wade, as have I. We support the principle “her body, her choice” and that one should have easy access to education and options in family planning.

Furthermore, our credo is “if you believe one person matters, you have to believe the numbers matter.” The number of children a family chooses to have has economic, societal, and environmental consequences and consenting adults need to be able to choose from a range of options, including one that may involve terminating a pregnancy.

I am not assuming or claiming the moral high ground when I state my views on abortion. There are many in the pro-life movement who authentically and unambiguously respect all human life and are driven by a sense of compassion to advocate for the unborn.

They campaign against capital punishment, war, and work to champion a great society that promotes the welfare of all citizens. And even though we fundamentally differ on abortion, their views deserve to be respected, nonetheless.

At the same time, I find fault with the many who say they believe in the principle of “my body, my choice,” but change their mind based on the issue. Case in point, those who spoke about locking up fellow citizens who refused to take the experimental Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson jab over the past two years. So much for principles!

That said though, it shouldn’t be lost on any of us the hypocrisy of many in the pro-life movement who treat war like a team sport and shout gleefully when our armed forces kill those strange to us. All the while lecturing about the sanctity of life.

Extrapolating from the concept that a family needs to seriously consider and make hard decisions about how many children to bring into the world, the U.S. should do the same in determining how many people to bring into this country. As stated earlier, “the numbers matter.”

During last week’s testimony by Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, before a House panel convened to discuss the chaos at the southern border, it became painfully obvious just how far we’ve strayed from the principle “if you believe one person matters, you have to believe the numbers matter”.

For his overall record on immigration and the administration’s current plan to lift pandemic-related limits on entry to the U.S. by asylum-seekers, Mayorkas was given a well-deserved drubbing by members of Congress.

Given the Biden administration’s negligence and reckless handling of immigration policy, which has encouraged millions to attempt to enter this country illegally, discussing “numbers” and family planning in the same breath is about as effective as handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500.

While I can’t say for certain if this quote from Camille Paglia, an American feminist, academic and social critic, reflects my abortion views or to the extent, it may have shaped them, I do find it enlightening and worth sharing:

“Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter. As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice. Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body. (Hence, I favor the legalization of drugs, though I do not take them.) Nevertheless, I have criticized the way that abortion became the obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement — leading to feminists’ McCarthyite tactics in pitting Anita Hill with her flimsy charges against conservative Clarence Thomas (admittedly not the most qualified candidate possible) during his nomination hearings for the Supreme Court. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women — an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence, I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?”

In closing, even though the U.S. Supreme Court document that leaked was a draft, it was the majority opinion and indicative of how the Court will ultimately rule. That being so, Roe v. Wade will no longer be the rule of the land and it will be up to the individual states to exercise support for a woman’s right to choose and the principle of “her body, her choice.”

Let’s hope they choose wisely.

In solidarity.

News Round Up

Mexico will take back more Cubans and Nicaraguans expelled by U.S.
Read More

The Parent Trap: Why Is It Still Seen As Selfish To Opt Out of Being a Mother?
Read More

Immigration Cannot Significantly Reduce Inflation
Read More

Homeland Security Secretary Testifies on National Security and Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request
Read More

Arizona Leads 14-State Suit Challenging Proposed Biden Asylum Rule
Read More

Medi-Cal Coverage Expands to All Californians 50 Years and Older, Regardless of Immigration Status
Read More

Recent Columns

California Considers Giving Law Enforcement Jobs to Illegal Immigrants – Really!
Read More

Cheating, Lying Spawned Border Invasion
Read More

Despite Advocates’ Labor Shortage Wailing, U.S. Workers Readily Available
Read More

Panama Betrayal: Mayorkas, Blinken Scheme for More Illegal Migration
Read More

National Sheriffs’ Association: ‘We Simply Have No Border Left….’
Read More

Biden Deaf to NYT’s Immigration Alarm Bells
Read More

Biden’s Immigration Parole Abuse Circumvents Established Law
Read More

Media Hits

Immigration Wish List: New, Improved, Pro-U.S. Tech Worker H-1B Visa
Read More

Cheating and Lying Spawned Border Invasion
Read More

Joe Guzzardi – Holding No One Accountable for the Border Crisis
Read More

Citizen Jeff Gets Schooled @ EarthX

Tweet of the Week