By Dave Andrusko
When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last week, like you, I anticipated an onslaught of angry, apocalyptic rhetoric. There is a certain strain of man-hating misogyny for which the Mississippi law, protecting unborn children after 15 weeks, would be the fuel that ignited a blaze of end-of-the-world rhetoric. And (in a manner of speaking) I was not disappointed.
I was not familiar with LZ Granderson, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, but I am now! Her “Where are men on the demolition of abortion rights?” column truly
Granderson begins by insisting that if you are a dad (“including many who called themselves ‘girldads’”), you ought to be up on arms over the possibility that the Court may, if not reverse Roe, will gut it.
Note that she’s talking about men in this rant, which is an essential evasion because woman have consistently been more supportive of abortion limitations than are men . But having disposed of this inconvenient truth, Granderson is off to the races. In chronological order we are
* “a patriarchal government [that]wants to force their daughter to give birth against her will”…
* “the latest incarnation of government-sanctioned misogyny that was evident in the writing of the Constitution; evident in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck vs. Bell in which the justices voted 8-1 in favor of forced sterilization”…
* [The phrase “pro-life”] “distracts us from the fact that the same patriarchal government that once denied women the right to vote or own property wants to force them to give birth against their will. It is a scenario ripped from the pages of Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’” ….
On top of that, “The reversal of a woman’s right to control her body — undergirded by religious fervor — moves the conversation away from routine partisan politics to being Taliban-adjacent.” And, for good measure, Granderson, linguistically, links us to slave holders and, experientially, to the attack on the Capital on January 6.
This is a kind of over-the-top lashing out that we’ve come to expect from pro-abortionists. To respond to a couple of his more outlandish statements…
I am the father of three daughters, I agree with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. Outgunned 3-1, on a roundtable of Times columnists discussing Dobbs, he said, “I would be grateful for the opportunity to build a society that does not assume that my three daughters’ status as equal human beings depends, practically or constitutionally, on their right to kill their own unborn children in utero.”
Buck vs. Bell was the product “the best people” who told us, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” “This quieter type of eugenics is sold with the claim to have the best interests of victims and society in mind,” John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris tell us. “Proponents wear clean white lab coats or judges’ black robes, while still dehumanizing and advancing evil.”
And as for “The Handmaid’s Tale,” pro-abortion feminists cling to this nonsense with all the fervor the most devout secularist can muster. But, then again, when your opponents (that would be us) are akin to slaveholders and the Taliban, it is your duty to slime us with every you’ve got.
PP has a horrific track record, having aborted more than 8 million unborn babies since… Read More
By Lisa Bourne When trying to reach a girl at risk for abortion, remember to… Read More
By Dave Andrusko Whenever possible, the abortion industry likes to pretend that it offers all… Read More
By Dave Andrusko In an unspeakable act of brutality, Devonne Marsh doused his pregnant girlfriend… Read More