The New York Times is warning progressives that one of the central texts of their shared religion is in danger. No, not the Paris Climate Agreement. The sky isn’t falling on that sky-is-falling scam. Nor is it Facebook’s gender options list -- you go right ahead and “identify” as a two spirit-trans-pansexual (with just a hint of Intersex and a complex-yet-earthy finish of genderqueer).
No, sayeth the Times’ January 22 editorial, Roe v. Wade is at risk. The Times’ isn’t specific on how Roe is going down, but inevitably, the Court will strike down the magical ruling that conjured from thin air a “right to privacy,” that sidelined the states and usurped congress’s sole constitutional responsibility for making bad laws. In short, even the Times recognizes that this is a legal dumpster fire that makes other dumpster fires feel good about themselves.
And abortion opponents are ready, warns the Gray Lady. They finally have a “Supreme Court with a majority hostile to reproductive rights,” (you know, killin’ babies all legal-like) and “it’s little surprise … they’ve been quick to seize the moment.”
It’ll be the moment those sneaky pro-lifers will finally get their rosaries on your ovaries. They’ve been “building a vast fund-raising and organizing network with the goals of securing an anti-abortion voting bloc and getting more like-minded judges, at every level, and lawmakers -- and presidents -- into power.”
Wow. With only the Democratic party, the nation’s cultural elite and all the major media on their side, what can the abortion über alles crowd do against such a juggernaut?
The Times says “abortion rights supporters have spent too long on the defensive.” Lefties “need their own robust playbook -- not just to fight back against attacks on reproductive freedom but also to pre-emptively protect and expand those freedoms wherever possible.” They need to introduce laws at the state level, like the ones pro-lifers have enacted.
“Women in many parts of the country are already finding it nearly impossible to exercise their reproductive rights,” says the Times, doing its best impression of a NARAL press release. And “43 percent of all reproductive-age women -- 29 million people -- now live in areas that are hostile to abortion rights, including seven states that each have just one abortion clinic left.”
You’d think abortion enthusiasts didn’t want women to think carefully and act deliberately before destroying the human lives inside them. Not the Times, whose abortion stance is “Safe, Legal and Rarin’ to Go.” Partly, that reflects the Times’ well-known status as a champion of the poor. You see, there’s “inequity around abortion … It is easy for women with means to get an abortion, while poor women are at the mercy of statutes that restrict their rights.” And the thought of all those poor babies making it to term just gives Malthusians like the Times editorialists the willies.
The editorial applauds a Pennsylvania lawsuit that would force the state to pay for abortion with Medicaid funds. “If successful, it could help thousands more women each year afford abortion.”
That would be an achievement, wouldn’t it?
