Just when you thought the Republicans would roll over the hapless Dems in November and restore some sanity to government, the Supreme Court decides to monkey with Roe v. Wade.
This ill-timed decision re-opens the long-standing and passionate beliefs of the two sides on abortion. Adherents of one side believe they are saving a baby's life from those who would kill it in the womb. The other side believes we all have the right to choose what to do with our bodies.
Each side considers the other to be arrogant and contemptible. Extremists on each side are hardened in their view and absolute in their resolve on this issue.
This is not an area court conservatives need to be disturbing. I respect each side of this tough choice, but as a libertarian, I fundamentally believe the less the government tells us what we have to do, the better. When there is a tough choice, I always prefer letting the people decide rather than government.
Republicans cannot say "We are the party of minimal government and personal responsibility, but in this space we are going to tell you what to do." I would be against abortion in a perfect world (even more so as I get older), but I do not want to limit anything we can do based on what politicians and capricious courts might dictate. This is a decision between doctor and patient.
A memo leaked on the Mississippi case that restricted abortions tipped off the public on how the Supreme Court might rule. In our leftist world, leaking a memo to the media to help the leaker's cause is not condemned. It's "heroic."
The Dems want to fundraise on this issue for the upcoming elections, knowing that 60% of Americans believe that abortion should be left as it is.
The reality is that men really should not decide what women should do with their bodies. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be made available in vending machines.
"My body, my choice" is the slogan of abortion advocates. I understand that. With all the troubled kids we have today who were unwanted and raised accordingly, having a kid should be thought out, the child should be wanted, and the parents should be competent. You have to get a license to shampoo a poodle but not to have a child.
I side with Dave Chappelle on another derivative issue on abortion. In his stand-up routine, he says that he is against abortion, but it depends on who he gets pregnant. He says it is the woman's right to choose, thus a woman can choose. But a man can choose, too. If a woman gets pregnant by a man who did not plan on it, and she decides to keep the baby, he should not have to pay for it. His money, his choice. He says in his stand-up on Netflix, "If she has the right to kill it, I have the right to abandon it." Chappelle's view is thought-provoking and explains why his smart humor need not be subject to "cancel culture."
We all should agree that we do not want government telling us any more things that we can and cannot do - on any matter. Look at government's track record of late. Now, when my next grandkid is born, it will not really know if it is a boy or girl - until its elementary school teacher tells it.
This bizarro new view of gender is based on government's condescending "Follow the Science" mantra. A Senate Democrat changed the wording on a bill that sought to codify abortion into law, from "a woman" to "a person having an abortion." This brilliant idea, he said, was based on a British scientist's conclusion that a man could give birth through his penis. And I thought being a Vanderbilt football fan was painful!
Contact Ron Hart, a syndicated op-ed satirist, author and TV/radio commentator, at Ron@RonaldHart.com or Twitter @RonaldHart.