Don’t say the w word
Even the editorial board of the Washington Post does it.
On Monday, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling declaring that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to end their pregnancies.
That jolts like a badly-constructed bus hitting a pothole. It’s not “Americans” who had the right to end their pregnancies, it’s American women who did. The Washington Post is not a teenager with tattoos; it should talk like an adult.
What brought the court to its current precipice was not a fundamental shift in American values regarding abortion. It was the shameless legislative maneuvering of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who jammed three Trump-nominated justices onto the court.
In his draft, Justice Alito points out that the court has overturned many cases in the past, including the atrocious Plessy v. Ferguson, which permitted racial segregation. But the court has never revoked a fundamental constitutional right. Overturning Plessy expanded liberty. Overturning Roe would constrict liberty — and be a repugnant repudiation of the American tradition in which freedom extends to an ever-wider circle of people.
Or, to put it another way, in which people who aren’t property-owning white men gain some of the rights those men allotted to themselves only.
For most people, Roe is a workable standard on a fraught issue; absent a clear understanding about when life begins, and with the moral implications surrounding that question far from settled, the Constitution’s guarantees of personal autonomy demand that pregnant people be able to make the difficult decision about whether to end their pregnancy according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Sigh. That “guarantees Americans” wasn’t an oversight; they’re doing it on purpose. They’re adding their bit to the fiction that this is an attack on the rights of everyone when it is in fact a massive attack on the rights of women. Women only. This isn’t done to men. However sympathetic men may be, however inconvenienced they may be, the attack is on the rights of women.
The Post has the bit in its teeth now, and goes all in.
It is Justice Alito’s proposed decision that would further divide the country, starting in nearly every statehouse. Yet the greatest casualties would not be the court as an institution or the nation’s already toxic politics. It would be pregnant individuals suddenly stripped of a right they had been guaranteed for almost half a century. Wealthy people would be able to cross state lines to end their pregnancies. (Although some states are already trying to outlaw that practice, as well.) Poor people would be forced either to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the health consequences and risks that entails, or to seek illegal abortions that could endanger their lives.
Emphasis mine. Perverse choice of wording theirs.
The piece doesn’t mention women at all. Not once.
On the other hand, Dana Milbank was surprisingly forthright in yesterday’s Post.
I suspect it’s staffers who are forbidden to say it, not independent writers who do opinion pieces. But why do staffers do it? Including the editorial board ffs? It’s insane.
Re the editorial board, they wouldn’t be bound by the same rules as the newsroom, but they do have to come to a consensus among themselves. The list of members is here. I think at least a few of them have expressed Rightthinking on trans issues.
What’s interesting is that typically, it’s fine in progressive circles to say that a particular policy targets or hurts Group X even if the majority of the injured parties are not X.
For example, if a particular piece of election legislation makes it harder for lots of people of all races to vote, but disproportionately affects minority voters, it’s still considered fine to say that it targets minority voters. Anyone who insisted that “well, white voters have to do this, too” would be treated as missing the point at best.
But when 99.9% of the people affected by the repeal of Roe are women, we must be very very careful to use language that includes the other 0.1%
If anything, the “people” language arguably undermines the point of constitutionality. After all, if the position is that the laws banning abortion target ‘people’ or ‘Americans’, well, that’s not discriminatory. Even laws protecting ‘gender identity’ as a protected class wouldn’t help, here. After all, if both men and women can get pregnant, then there’s no discriminatory element to this law.
I honestly hadn’t factored this bit in, and it terrifies me.
The “right to choose” seems obfuscatory as well. The issue is specifically abortion. We don’t, and shouldn’t, have a right to choose anything and everything. Someone who had no knowledge of the issue wouldn’t be able to decipher it from “right to choose”. Add in the “woman’s -> person’s” shift, and we have the completely incomprehensible “person’s right to choose”, which means nothing except to people who already know.
That 9-point-difference poll clinched it for me. Politicians and people like Chase Strangio adopt “inclusive” language with full knowledge of its effects, because they are craven, sniveling cowards, and this way they can “fight” for “people’s” abortion rights without actually fighting to win. It lets them hide the fact that they’re throwing the fight.
Nullius, which poll?
Holms,
See here.
Gotcha, thanks
I don’t think that VP Harris got the memo not to refer to women:
https://wapo.st/3MRHvJP
Unless Jennifer Rubin did some quote-editing in this column.