It never ceases to amaze me, the ignorance of the religious right. They’re good at fighting, though, so this is something to be concerned about.
“I’d love to fight Roe v. Wade,” said incoming law student Heidi Thompson, 33, a Liberty graduate who has spent the past few years working as a high school counselor in Orlando, Florida.
Hearing a statement like this, I can’t help but wonder if there are Christians out there who have even read Roe v. Wade.
As I noted earlier this month, it doesn’t say what a lot of Christians automagically assume it says. For one thing, while it is true that because of Roe certain abortion rights forbidden by some states between about the 1950s and the 1970s could no longer be forbidden, the significance of Roe is much more important to the average non-pregnant citizen, both male and female.
Unfortunately, right-wing Christians cannot see past the narrowness of their own field of vision to read the case. They look at Griswold and Roe and all they can see are the words “woman,” “contraception” and “abortion.” Far be it from them to realize that the ruling in both cases is actually about how much the government can intrude into the private lives of citizens.
But this is fairly typical of right-wing Christians. Far be it from them to fully understand what’s at stake. A woman might decide on her own to have an abortion! That’s why we no longer have politicians who campaign by talking about complex issues. Everything today is a “litmus test” and a sound bite.
Freedom? That’s just another word for nothing left to lose. After all, as long as you do it G-d’s way — which is to say Bush, or Falwell, or Robertson, or whichever is currently using the direct line to heaven — you shouldn’t care about freedom.
And G-d forbid you should use the brain “He” gave you to at least read what it is you’re trying to have overruled.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Chepooka // Aug 18, 2004 at 2:50 pm
Excellent. I am no lawyer, but it often occurs to me that Roe v. Wade keeps government out of my womb so that I am free to do with it as I will – and that not only means that I am free to have an abortion, but I am free from the government telling me I HAVE TO HAVE ONE. ?? Or is that just liberal/social libertarian paranoia?
2 Rick // Aug 18, 2004 at 3:14 pm
Not quite sure where the “free from the government telling me I HAVE TO HAVE ONE” comes from — so far as I know, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of anything like that happening in the U.S.
Roe v. Wade doesn’t keep the government out of your womb, except under certain circumstances. One thing Roe says, for example, is that
As I noted earlier, both in the post above and in another post titled “Roe v. McGroarty,” the case of Roe v. Wade is primarily about the constitutional right to privacy, the right to essentially live one’s life free of governmental interference.
Those who fight so hard to overturn Roe often don’t even understand what it is they’re fighting.
3 Chepooka // Aug 18, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, my logic might be off here. I was just tossing it out – that is, given that Roe v. Wade is about “privacy” – that it follows (in my mind) that it works both ways.
That is, I have a right to CHOOSE what to do with my body without interference from government (a.k.a. “privacy). In other words – I am free to choose to keep the pregnancy, I am free choose to terminate. Either way, the government has no say (to a large degree.)
You mentioned forced sterilization, is it a huge leap to forced abortion?
As to what has a snowball’s chance in hell – I just look at John Ashcroft and I think, “Nothing would surprise me.” Again, paranoia, I know. lol
Lots of food for thought. Thanks for getting my wheels spinning, I will read up on it a bit more, clearly I need to! It’s been at least a decade since I’ve read the original ruling. 🙂
Leave a Comment