We are on the verge of a return to big government interference in family affairs.
I am referring to the upcoming overturning of Roe v Wade by the activist , right wing majority on the Supreme Court. I think most of us would be very surprised if the McConnell majority does not decide that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy no longer exists. One of the few (first?) times a SCOTUS has taken away a well established right.
Of course, as a practical matter this makes little difference. The SCOTUS for years has turned a blind eye to the real elimination of this right, state by state. For all practical purposes abortion has been illegal for years in many states, at least for poor families. Chipping away, slowly, until the right to abortion exists only in theory, not practice. Especially for poor families.
Notice, I hope, that I write “families”.
This ongoing attack on the right to an abortion has been seen by the left as a “woman’s issue”. It is. But it is much more than that. By ignoring the wider implications of the attack on abortion rights the liberals have played into the hands of the right wing. Yes, women get pregnant. But the abortion issue is not just about women.
The left needs to wake up and see the issue in much wider terms. They need to aggressively demonstrate the fundamental importance to men. To families.They need to frame the issue in a different way.
In the final analysis the argument breaks down to this.
Who has the right to determine how many children a family can have? Is it the family or is it big government? Should mom and dad decide, or should they be controlled by a law made by the state legislature? Who knows better ? Who should decide how may kids a man or woman can support, the family or big brother?
You would think that conservatives, who have panic attacks when asked to wear a mask, would be on the side of the family. But they are not. This is one area where they care not for “freedom” from big government. They demand big government. They demand the suppression of family rights. They show their true, authoritarian, colors.
In Germany in the 1930s the Nazis demanded that “Aryan” women have more babies. For the fatherland. The state decided how many babies a family could have. It is called authoritarianism.
In communist China in the 1960s the government demanded that families in cities limit themselves to one child. Only one. If the first child was a girl many families committed infanticide, hoping for a boy next time. The state decided how many babies a family could have. It is called authoritarianism.
In the USA today we have the same attitude .The state should decide how many children a family will have. Not mom. Not dad. Big brother. The only true function of a family is to add babies. No matter the emotional or economic cost. It matters not what the family wants. Authoritarianism.
So, if a man or woman s working hard to make ends meet and does not want another mouth to feed, too bad. The state will decide. If a woman has a medical condition that may put her in danger with another pregnancy, too bad. The state will decide. Authoritarianism.
Families no longer have rights .These same folks who whine and cry about “freedom” from vaccines or mask wearing seem to care little about the freedom of a man and woman to plan their family size.
This is where the “pro-choice” movement has missed the boat. For the most part they have left fathers and families out of the equation. They have allowed the right wing to ignore family rights and men’s rights when it comes to the issue. They have been unwittingly complicit in focusing on this as ONLY a woman’s issue. It is much more than that.
Abortion rights need to be more clearly described for what they are. The right of a dad and mom to decide for themselves how many children they want. A fundamental right of a family to choose . Ending the right to an abortion eliminates the right of the family to determine it’s own destiny. Authoritarianism.
2 responses to “Families v Big Brother”
There is more at stake than abortion. If the court would rule that there is no right to privacy after all, other freedoms would be in jeopardy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good point. I had not thought of that,