A Facebook friend of mine posted this meme last week, after the leak of the draft Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. I posted on the case and draft ruling Tuesday, but with this meme as a backdrop, I would like to add onto that post. I’ve heard countless assaults on the ruling itself, and the justices in particular. Let’s look at a few of the arguments agains throwing out Roe v Wade.
The meme above is a common refrain from the left, “Men can’t make laws about women’s bodies…” etc. OK, does that mean if a woman votes for a law restricting abortion to one degree or another, it’s OK? Not really. We pass laws controlling the bodies of men, women, and children, all the time, but for some reason, only abortion gets leftist riled up.
If a woman (Or man for the matter) wants to lease her body for sex in exchange for money or other form of compensation, can she? No, she can’t. Prostitution is illegal in 49 states and the District of Columbia (Ironic, more people sell themselves in the capital than in all other states combined, but that’s another post for another day). And in Nevada, it’s legal in ten of the states sixteen counties. So are these laws invalid because they regulate how a woman can use her body to make money?
A particularility of American law has taken hold of our jurisprudence since the 1960s. For ages, most states set the age to vote at 21. That was changed to 18 nationwide with the passage of the 26th Amendment, with the rational if a man was old enough to fight and die, he is old enough to vote.
Add to that, at 18 you can sign a contract, enlist in the military, die for your country, engage in employment, get married, and countless other features of adulthood. But what can’t you do to your body? Consume alcohol or tobacco.
Prior to 1984, multiple states set their age to buy alcohol below 21. However, with the passage of federal legislation tying highway funds to raising the drinking age, states (some very reluctantly) raised their drinking age to 21. But some of the same liberals who say, “My body, my choice,” have no issue with saying to you, as an adult (18-19-20) cannot consume alcohol, a legal substance.
Europe is more sophisticated, if you will. I recall speaking with an army officer who was married to an Italian woman, “Mike, Italian army field rations have wine in them, a small pack, just part of the meal. When we go to visit her family, my boys (8 and 9 at the time) are served a class of wine when we eat, just part of the lunch or dinner.” In England, the age to drink is 18, and an adult can buy beer, wine, or cider at a restaurant for 16 and 17 year olds. America seems a bit regressive on this matter, telling adults what they can do with their body, the body they own.
Another legal substance that is denied to young adults? Tobacco. Now no-one questions that tobacco use (Cigarette, chewing tobacco, etc) is hazardous to your health, but it is a legal substance. But this doesn’t stop anyone who want to smoke or chew from doing that. However, the same congress, filled with dozens of women who scream, “Men shouldn’t be making laws about women’s bodies” are the same ones who said, “Sorry, I know you’re 19, and you can vote, sign a student loan of $50,000, even die for your country, but you’re not old enough to smoke.”
Seems like the government is making decisions on how adults treat their bodies? I wonder where Pelosi and Schumer are?
During the 1992 vice presidential candidates debate, one of the greatest applause lines was from Ross Perot’s running mate, Admiral James Sockdale, (Other than, “Who am I? Why am I here?”) was, when asked a question on abortion, responded, “I believe that a woman owns her own body, and what she does with it is her own business, period…period” OK, point to be made, and with all due respect to Admiral Sockdale, a woman (Nor a man) does not “own” their body.
If I wanted to, could I have my body parts sold upon death, with the proceeds going to my estate, my family? Personally, while I am a registered organ donor, I know if you could sell your organs, that would help countless people waiting on the organ donation list. So, if I “own” my body, can I sell it’s parts?
Of course not. Out benevolent Congress, in its infinite wisdom, banned the practice in the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, make selling or buy organs or other human tissue illegal. A purported reason was to stop the rich from having an “unfair” advantage in getting organs. Forgive me if I take that as BS.
Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting on organ transplants. I have a family member who died waiting on the liver transplant list. Now it’s not just the number of organs that’s an issue, but insuring the donated liver, etc will match a recipient. No question, it’s not just “Here is my dad’s lungs….” But obviously, the more organs out there, “on the market” if you will, the more matches you will have, and more lives will be saved or extended. So why not let people sell their body parts. It cannot hurt, and likely will lower the cost of transplants. But for some reason, Congress wants to pass laws on how you use the body you own.
So, as the rent-a-mobs “protest” the homes of Supreme Court justices (And for some reason the Garland Just-Us department will not prosecute those law breakers, but has plenty of time to monitor parents in school board meetings), Schumer tried to pass a law about women’s bodies, Democrats are horrified that women are not as concerned about this as not having enough money to put food on the table or fill their car up with gas, or not get murdered taking money out of the ATM, one point should be made. Assume this decision is put out tomorrow, abortion will not be illegal to the majority of women.
The state of New York and People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia (The former state of California) already has laws in place that if Roe v Wade is overruled, they will allow women to have all the abortions they want. Governor Gruesome Newsom has asked for 40 million to pay for women (In state and out) to come to the PDRK and abort all the kids they want, likely as late as the head crowing in delivery. Illinois passed a similar law, and repealed mandatory parental notification for minors. These three states represent over a fifth of the US total population. States where there will be restrictions on abortion (e.g. TX, LA, MS) will be a day’s drive or bus ride to states with less restrictions.
Will there be some issue of having to travel for abortions, yes. Is that unconstitutional, no. MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston is arguably the finest cancer center in the county (At the very least, it rivals the Mayo Clinic). If I live in Arkansas, or Montana, Alaska, or the PDRK, should I have to travel to Houston or Minnesota to get first rate cancer treatment? Yes, you can’t get everything everywhere. It’s call life.
Women wanting abortion services will be able to get them, but they not be able to take the local metro bus or an Uber to an abortion clinic, but a Greyhound. Hopefully this also encourages women to use contraceptives or “day after” pills. This is not the 1850s, or 1950s, if a woman wants to control their body, engage in sex, and not get pregnant, they can. Just takes a little preparation (e.g. the pill, an IUD, telling your partner to use a condom or leave).
But more on the subject, Roe v Wade, finally, is heading to where it belongs. The ash heap of history, like other abortions of constitution law over the ages. No question the Democrats are going to try to make political money out of this issue, but while mothers cannot find formula for their children, and women cannot afford to eat and fill up their gas tanks, other issues will be of more concern to the American people. And the state will, to a greater degree, become the “laboratories of democracy” they were intended to be.
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN:
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: AFNN_USA
There is a logical inconsistency in the homicide laws of the states and abortion.
Most states define an unborn child as a vicitm in homicide so that if you kill an unborn it is homicide. Some states, such as Pennsylvania, define an unborn child as alive at conception. Other states start at 6 weeks and up.
These prosecutions usually occur when a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman killing the mom and child.
So if you kill an unborn child it is a homicide, but if you abort it is a choice.
And in a case like that, two death certificates are issued. But in an abortion, no death certificate is issued, but Planned Parenthood gets to sell the parts.
National Review just put out a good overview on this subject. Ending Roe may be the easy part of it.
Those women who come up with memes like that are only interested in having cake and eating it, too. They are interested in having sex, without any fuss. Sex was intended to make the fuss the part that kept human civilization going, not for enjoyment.
But try to tell those women that.
I have yet to hear the one thing that explains what makes me cringe the most: Why would a woman go public and make a statement that she should have aborted her own son or daughter? It has gotten that bad. Women who would say such a thing, especially in the public, have no right to be talking about anything. I think they forfeited that right, by being so damned evil. Some mother gave birth to that evil. I wonder if she could possibly be asking for a do over, in the afterlife? For that daughter, who hates life so much?