After Texas passed one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, the abortion rights activists have been coming for Texas, and many of their corporate, media, and state compatriots have joined in that assault. The push is to create a climate where even questioning the morality of abortion could end up leaving you blacklisted on their social access cards.
As abortion rights activists become more and more militant, to no one’s surprise the prolife crowd is coming back more determined than ever to make abortion illegal across the land. Rather than intimidating and silencing the prolife, they’ve made them more determined than ever to end abortion once and for all.
As sure as one side is of their moral right, so too is the other of theirs, and the divide is unbreachable. The old method of settling the greys, the spaces where our Bill of Rights do not clearly define how we should approach such an exchange of potential action, through the courts, through legislation, through elections, seems to be going out the window, and the ‘left’ fired the first existential shots that made it clear to the prolife, that there could be no compromise.
You accept the full abortion program, from beginning to end. You don’t question the morality. You don’t dare support laws restricting it. If you do, you get suspended from your social access card. Your life is to scratch the dirt in the underground, a shadow of what you might be if you lived in a land that did not use violence to silence dissent.
The response is not fear, however, as the now-DNC-normal-once-radical-left is soon to find out, it’s more determination, and less compromise in return should the ‘right’ win back power from the ‘left,’ now fat in their cups and feeling invincible in their current overwhelming concentration of power.
Texas is a symbol of that defiance, but also of the further breakdown of any hope of these divides ever finding common ground again. Texas is making abortion as existentially threatened and abortion rights activists have been making being prolife an existentially threatened position in society.
The cost of supporting or not supporting abortion is high in America after Texas. It’s no longer a one-sided affair.
I predict Roe v Wade may not be overturned so much as limits clearly defined for states to operate within, if they address Roe at all, as some of the issues involved in the Texas abortion law go beyond abortion rights or unborn rights questions alone, and, while I won’t get into those particulars right here, there are elements that, I would suggest, should be concerning for Americans, be the for or against the right to abort. These vulnerabilities could ultimately be what does this law in (and I predict it will be shut down, at least in the enforcement part of the law).
I predict the court will sidestep the Roe v Wade question altogether and leave it to Texas to write a law that doesn’t violate numerous other Bills of Rights of citizens (as I predict the court will find, but, again, based on the enforcement part of the law, not on the issue of restricting abortion itself).
One of the underlying problems of enforcing an abortion ban is how suspected abortions are reported in the first place. Here, I believe, is where the Texas Law might run into more than enough legal troubles to render it a non-law, a declaration with no teeth. This problem, of how to create a reporting mechanism that doesn’t give the state powers it is most assuredly sure to extend beyond mere abortion investigating.
Whatever your belief regarding abortion, the issues around it are complex, and they deserve a hearing for we the people to listen to, to take part in, to form, through a caucus-type process to form something as close to a consensual national spirit regarding abortion. For myself, I am decidedly pro life, and unapologetically so, but we live in a Democratic Republic, limited by a Constitution, by a Bill of Rights.
Within that pluralistic frame, it is consensus we should seek with such a difficult issue as abortion, in a land populated by people of diverse views. We have no real consensus even fundamentally in faith, let alone politics, or even in ethics at this point. But we have the Bill of Rights, and around this a diverse people can ‘progress’ towards a greater total fulfilment of the idea that all humans are individually sacred but integrally dependent. We start with the sacredness of the individual before we design our human zoos. We will not negotiate on this matter.
In order to be that place for these diverse peoples, we must give consensual exchange a chance to give this nation a shared understanding, in overwhelming aggregate, of our Bill of Rights standards as they apply to such a difficult issue as abortion. I hope, I pray, and I even believe, that, in the end, in a spirit of reason, a spirit of logic, a spirit of symbolic understanding, a spirit of faith understanding, we as a nation find a way to end abortion in this land without creating horror from our effort to end it.
This is the key, to end one horror without causing others. If we don’t take everyone seriously, we will surely cause horror no matter what we decide to do.
Texas’ attorney general asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to deny the Biden administration’s request to reimpose a lower court injunction against the the state’s controversial abortion law as litigation over it proceeds—but argued in a court filing that if the justices take up the case, they should also consider more broadly whether to overturn the court’s precedent on abortion entirely.