Like Shylock demanding his pound of flesh in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver.
I hope that I can some day misunderstand a situation so thoroughly that FAIR will give me a platform to tell everyone about it. There’s so much to disagree with here, but I’ll just mention two.
First, as Elizabeth said below, SCOTUS did not ban abortion. Melissa says that Alito is hungry for power, but what the court essentially decided was that it wasn’t up to them to decide for the whole nation on the abortion issue. There’s this weird thing going on right now where people think that it’s “authoritarian” that the whole country now gets a say on the issue, instead of 9 people.
Second, running throughout the whole essay is this idea that everyone is thinking about this issue in black and white, but Melissa has a more nuanced view. It’s quite a selective nuance, however, as she takes on a more black/white stance when it’s convenient. For example, she links to a study that says the majority (61%) of Americans favor the right of women to choose. So, pro-abortion, right? No. Here are the two choices from the study: legal in all/most cases vs illegal in all/most cases. In other words, those who want abortions without exception are grouped with those who want abortion with exceptions, and those who want no abortions whatsoever are grouped with those who want no abortions, with some exceptions. This distinction is fundamentally meaningless because most Americans are somewhere in the middle. Most Americans have a more nuanced view, despite what Melissa says.
Based on the essay, her “more nuanced” view involves misunderstanding jurisprudence, straw-manning the entire populace, and dragging out every exceedingly rare pro-abortion trope. Nuance is also lost when she repeatedly talks about getting pregnant as something that just seems to “happen” to women.
She begins the last paragraph with, “By disallowing abortion, the court fails to protect those who need protection the most”. As stated above, they didn’t “disallow” abortion. Beyond that though, one thing I’ve noticed more recently is that pro-abortion people used to at least mouth the words that the unborn child exists and should be considered, but that time seems to be long gone. Now there is never any mention of the unborn child (or fetus, if you want to conveniently dehumanize it). Its worth is literally nothing in today’s discourse. You could argue that the unborn child’s life is worth less than that of the mother, but to ignore it entirely is the sort of black-and-white thinking that Melissa is taking part in while simultaneously railing against.
I could go on and on, but the sort of sloppy thinking displayed in Melissa’s essay gets us nowhere. She should have a right to say it, and I appreciate that FAIR allows for diversity of thought, but this is particularly weak. I look forward to seeing more worth reading in the comments section than the article itself, which seems to be happening more and more around here, as of late.
Thank you for reading and responding. We are committed to including diverse voices and encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse on all topics, including this one.
This Substack piece reflects one perspective. If you’d like to join the discussion, we welcome and encourage you to send your own to submissions@fairforall.org.
I guess the question I would have here is: how are you defining “good-faith”? I would say that a “bad-faith” argument would be one where the author attributes to others arguments or beliefs without providing any evidence to back it up. Alito wrote a long, long opinion in the Dobbs decision. If she thought his reasoning made him like Shylock, why not quote something, anything, that he said which supports this claim? That would be one thing. It’s a whole other thing to assume intent on his part without any evidence. Alito wasn’t the only one misrepresented in this essay but I’m not going to spell out every instance in which Melissa presumed to be a mind-reader. See the other comments for that.
Second, is it an example of “good-faith discourse” to ignore critical comments (even clearly respectful ones) and virtually only engage with those with whom you agree? It would be one thing if Melissa didn’t look at the comments to her essay at all, but you can find her liking one-sentence comments that amount to, “great essay” while not even touching the majority of comments which disagree with her. Is this an example of the FAIR standard of good-faith discourse?
Third, a good example of how it should be done (so far) is in today’s essay on the same topic. That author quotes people and takes them at their word, based on those quotes. I would say that’s in good faith. In the comments section you see quite a number of people who strenuously disagree with him, but they disagree with his POINT, and in a way that is enlightening to readers. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, both the essay and its comments have interesting perspective. Contrast that with Melissa’s essay, where most of the comments are focused on the various parts where she was factually incorrect.
In sum, the issue isn’t that a voice such as Melissa’s shouldn’t be heard, but I believe that her essay was written in bad-faith, based on her lack of evidence, lack of understanding, and routine mischaracterization of those with whom she disagrees. This essay doesn’t add to the conversation, it just rehashes already-common misunderstandings. FAIR should not abide such bad-faith, mushy thinking.
This is a moronic piece of cluelessness. I love the beginning, looking for deep intellectual meaning, but you failed within the first comparison. Alito and SCOTUS did not provide mercy -- they provided noting other than the rule of law. Your weak comparison is amateurish at worst, naive at best. No rights were stripped, only a bad decision removed from the history books, delivered to the States and We The People as the law requires to make a decision on this gravely important matter. Of course this does not fit into your brilliants but lacking presentation of a great play comparator. You are better than that... especially considering your writing skills are fantastic.
Ms. Penny, Your comment is vapid and grossly assumptive. Making a character challenge from my comment means you're void of the understanding of my comment. As a society, we all must show more grace and give mercy to those in need, and I lead the way in these two virtues. However, the story that you reference highlights the laziness of the writers ability to use a story line that has zero (not hyperbole) to do with what SCOTUS ruling--a ruling in the law, not in someones feelings. SCOTUS has a job to rule solely based on the merits of the law. They ruled the original ruling, per RBG was wholly flawed and needed to be returned to the States. I hope my demonstration of showing you grace will intern give you hope there is grace and mercy in this world-- and that you should truly dig deeper to understand someone's comment and avoid jumping in with the loud, clueless keyboard cowboys of our society and be a knowledgable guiding light. Remember, snide comments are the lowest form of wit. All the best, B
SCOTUS did not "disallow" abortion; it put the issue back to the individual states. Our system of government doesn't place law-making powers with the courts. "Allowing" abortion is a law, a rule. One that should be made by a rule-making body - either Congress at the Federal level or the state legislatures. No matter how you feel about the right of a person to end a fetus, baby's life, when life begins, exceptions etc - that is the fact of our government. I will leave aside the questions of the various state rules etc - however I will note that Germany will not prosecute (abortion is illegal) those abortions occurring within 12 weeks. The US had no rules whatsoever... There is a rational middle ground, but it must be LEGISLATED within the actual rule-making bodies.
Just because it was affirmed via interpreted decisions, doesn’t turn it into a constitutional right (it’s not directly IN the constitution..) Who remembers Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs The Board of Ed.? It’s not the first time a decision has been overturned.
Wanting to see something as a Constitutional right and having it as a Constitutional right are two different things. Even RBG knew Roe was shaky.
I agree with Elizabeth that middle ground can only be reached through legislation. This is not what national Dems have been bringing to the floor - legislation that goes beyond Roe - when decades of polling shows that the majority of Americans support abortion for any reason in the first trimester, and with greater limits further along for the life of the mother and late-discovered birth defects of the baby.
agree 100%. The entire question highlights the corruption and excessive politics of Congress, which is need of reform. Congress has wholly abdicated its responsibility to compromise and pass federal legislation. Anger should be directed to our Congressmen and Congresswomen, who no longer do their jobs but spend their time fundraising, posturing and positioning themselves for future political or lobbying positions. The popularity of Congress is even beneath that of our current potus, and that is saying something.
Middle ground can only be achieve with an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislation, even though it may be bipartisan, would still have to pass muster with the Constitution. Legislation must be constitutional first and foremost.
Why can’t it be a federal law like any other? (Serious question- plenty of laws are enacted which don’t have to be an amendment to the Constitution- which would be a massive hurdle getting states to ratify it. We can barely get laws passed as it is.)
If a bipartisan bill was passed in the House, the Senate and signed by POTUS that made gun ownership illegal, in a sense - took away the right to bare arms, any citizen would be in their right to challenge this new law all the way up to SCOTUS. And would likely win. The Constitution has primacy. Federal laws cannot supersede the Constitution. What this means, is that those laws you speak of must either clearly not violate the Constitution or are so murky that no one sought to litigate the matter up to SCOTUS.
I see how that would work for gun laws, when guns are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but I still wonder if it would be necessary here when SCOTUS just ruled the court shouldn’t have taken a stance on abortion already, and sent it to the states. But maybe you’re right! Thank you for explaining what you meant a bit more.
Dr. Knox, you commented, "Well, I'd see abortion as a constitutional right." You have a Ph.D. in literature and have written on literature and psychoanalysis. With respect, what qualifies you to have an opinion about Constitutional interpretation? Jurisprudence is as much a specialized field as medicine, so I have to wonder what makes you, as a legal lay person, believe you have any more right to an opinion about how the U.S. Constitution and our federal system works than a medical lay person would have a right to an opinion about which antibiotic to use for a specific infection? There is no shame in a non-specialist having an appropriate sense of humility about his or her understandable limitations. There is no reason you SHOULD have an opinion about the Constitution, any more than I (a non physician) should have an opinion about medicine. But I would therefore never presume to write an article about pharmacology.
Actually, both the fourth and fourteenth amendments have been interpreted as protecting the right to abortion: tps://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion
As a practicing Constitutional attorney for over 30 years, who has litigated Constitutional questions in federal court, I am certainly aware of the Court's decisions on that topic. And appropriately qualified people can, and have, offered a variety of opinions about the subject. My question is what give YOU a qualification to have an opinion, one way or the other, as to which argument is better grounded in the Constitution?
I'm sure you have opinions about all kinds of things outside of your profession about which you're well-informed. It's possible to be well-informed about the law without being a lawyer. Any citizen can read and form an opinion about the Constitution--and many do.
No, it is not true that any citizen can read and form a meaningful opinion about the Constitution, any more than any citizen can read and form a meaningful opinion about a medical journal article. Even explicit words and phrases in the Constitution do not always have the same meaning they might have in everyday 21st Century speech and require a great deal of context (about both the words themselves and the about way the Constitution functions) to understand in a meaningful way, and the present issue (abortion) is even more difficult because it involves a concept that is NOT found in any of the explicit words of the Constitution. Even when we have text to read, its meaning is not always clear or intuitive: the full meaning of text as seemingly clear as "freedom of speech" and "free exercise of religion" is not clear without a great deal of background (what speech is protected by the First Amendment is one of the more complex areas of jurisprudence, and the meaning of freedom of religion is even more difficult to apply) and the issue of abortion is even less transparent since there is no text to read at all; understanding the Constitutional implications of a non-textual concept such as abortion requires a deep understanding of the way the Constitution works, our federal system, subtle legal concepts and theories layered upon each other, and hundreds of years of legal history, none of which can be obtained simply by reading the Constitution itself.
I disagree with you there Dan. This article clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Knox is an American citizen. Therefore she, like all voting citizens, has a voice in the law of our country, regardless of expertise.
Every American citizen has a voice in the POLITICAL process and the right to say -- and vote -- what she feels the law SHOULD be. But this article is not that. This is not an article about what laws our legislatures (federal and state) should enact regarding a particular topic; it is an article that purports to comment on what the law IS -- i.e., what the Constitution says with regard to a particular topic -- and that is a subject requiring specialized background to interpret and understand.
And to the extent the article expresses an opinion about what the Supreme Court should do -- as opposed to what the legislature should do -- that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court should NOT be influenced by public opinion; indeed the Court's function in our system of checks-and-balances is to act as a restraint on public opinion. The public, through their elected representatives, enact the laws; the Supreme Court's function is to say, if needed, "No, you may not do that, the Constitution prevents it," and that decision by the Court must be based on the text and context of the Constitution, and nothing else.
There are plenty of times in our history when a majority would have been glad to use their numerical power and political strength to oppress a minority (either a minority population or a minority opinion); the Constitution and Supreme Court are the checks on that abuse, and for that system to work the Court MUST ignore public opinion and look to nothing but the Constitution. Citizens have a voice in what laws are enacted, but they do not, cannot, and must not have any voice at all in how the Constitution is interpreted with regard to limits on those laws.
Thank you for this Dan. That was the point of my first comment. The author writes in a manner that displays her fundamental lack of understanding about our system of government. Civics teachers in this country have failed to do their jobs (assuming she was brought up in the US...)
Hi! Are you an American citizen? I see you teach at a German university.
You mentioned Ben Shapiro several times. I stopped listening to him about a 6 months ago or so, so I don't know what he's been saying recently. In the past, he was always clear that he was against abortion except in the case where the mother's life was at risk - which you detailed here. You and he would be on the same page in those scenarios.
Each state has their own constitution, which is inferior to the federal constitution. Some states have abortion as a constitutional right. Some states laws allow partial birth abortion. Other states do not allow abortion at all, only allow abortion before a heartbeat can be detected, during the first trimester, etc. The laws vary. To get a federal constitutional amendment, the people vote on the amendment. It is highly unlikely at this time that the people of all 50 states, who have such varying viewpoints, will agree to one amendment to the constitution.
Also, Americans are allowed to freely travel across state lines.
I said something similar in my comment. Wanting something to be legal- but only in a way that one side accepts (up until birth w/ no limits)- is not the path forward. Both parties took it for granted that they could turn the crazy up to 11 and never work towards a compromise- like most other industrialized nations w/ legal abortion.
If one is trying to make the mercy argument, one might want to start by not misrepresenting the SCOTUS ruling. Either the author never read Dobbs, or is intentionally stating that it disallows abortion. Either way, whatever follows can be ignored, because it’s all built on this initial falsehood.
Please, do bring in multiple viewpoints on issues, but not at the expense of your standards.
Surprised at this post on the FAIR substack. Not well reasoned or well written, and seems far outside the mission of FAIR...isn't it pro-human? You'd think a more balanced and nuanced view would be appropriate.
I’m pro-choice but I disagreed with this piece because SCOTUS sent it back to the states, it did ban abortion.
I had an abortion during college, & it was a traumatic experience. I am older now & was blessed with two children. I can never know what life would have been like if I hadn’t had my abortion.
I don’t need to share my story because it’s hard to even write about it. But I am. I’ve been a Democrat since I first voted, and over the years they went from “safe, legal, rare” to “shout your abortion.” The latter always made me uncomfortable. It didn’t make space for women like me who made the choice under duress-- who may still be wracked with guilt.
But from the Right I see no move for understanding. Though pro-life groups often promote stories like mine of women who were traumatized by their abortion -- It never takes long to read a comment dripping with cruelty -- usually by a man.
I’m sure your pain is sincere and tragic; I am sorry that you carry that with you and I pray you find relief some day.
I agree with the disingenuous nature of much of the pro-choice side. They also have a large share of ridiculous cherry-picked atrocities (like raped 10 year olds) and faked situations (like “women with ectopic pregnancies will be left to die.”). It’s all designed to paint pro-life as evil. Meanwhile they also minimize or deny the fact that a life is killed. That is where they err in “understanding.” No concern whatsoever for that innocent life. And there is little mention, if any, of the responsibility of the man & woman having consensual sex. And no mention of the father’s interests, which seems hard and wrong and lacking understanding to me.
I don’t think most arguments are designed to inflict pain, though some comments are, but the topic and reality itself are inherently fraught with pain.
I didn’t respond to this but I think it’s wrong to paint all pro-life people as evil. I’ve made it a point to listen to more people that I don’t really WANT to... because I prejudge what they’ll say. I listened to a Triggernometry episode where they talked to a pro-life doctor there and it was hard to do, but he brought up things that I could look up later. There’s no harm done by listening.
Thank you for your response, Jen. I don’t ask for anyone to accept my choice, but to keep it in mind that for some (many?) if us who’ve had an abortion, it was a decision made in a state of panic.
I agree with what you are saying. It’s not possible to talk about this issue without mentioning the other life. I know how the pro-choice side speaks about it, and it’s denialism. It’s not a mani-pedi, it’s a serious matter and the “shout your abortion” crowd does nothing to inspire compassion.
I had twins later through IVF (my eggs, husband’s sperm), and got to witness life from its earliest moments. On one side after several cycles of implanted embryos you appreciate how delicate life is, how everything can be going fine until in one moment- it’s not. I loved them as my babies since the first time I saw their ultrasounds. I cannot fathom allowing abortion for any reason in the 2nd trimester onward. I also can’t imagine a woman that far along wanting an abortion. Life of the mother, unforeseen birth defects of some level (I’m not a doctor, or an ethicist... I’ll leave those larger issues to them).
I am pro-life and also went through IVF to have my babies at age 40 and a week shy of 42. I gave all of our embryos a chance for life. Both babies were rushed to the NICU (daughter had cord around her neck and she was an emergency C-section after a day of trying to dilate. I never even got to see her before she went to the NICU. Son was a planned C-section 17 months after daughter because he was going to be large (10.2 and 21 inches) and breech. The day after his birth he had a stroke. He is ok because we saw the seizures (many don't) but I don't doubt that if the doctor knew from an ultrasound that he would suffer a stroke after birth (by detecting something wrong in the left center lobe), they would have suggested abortion. Life serves up its challenges to us all. I would love to see more adoptions.
Having said that, I would never ever suggest to know the challenges you faced in college and the reason you chose abortion. My expression of mercy, unlike in this essay, is to show my concern, as a person who believes in all life, for you despite our differences. Wishing you the best.
I’m glad to hear that your children are okay. My twins were born at 37 weeks, and we were spared the NICU though I was worried about an early birth my whole pregnancy (37 wks is considered full term for twins.) You NICU parents are made of strong stuff. Thankfully there is so much more that can be done to help little ones survive these days... heart surgeries in utero even.
I don’t feel any I’ll will towards pro-life people. I do worry about the lack of a social safety net that most European countries have - along with abortion limits between 12-15 weeks. The US is a different situation.
I think adoption is a good solution for many, but it’s never as easy as people think it is. My good friend adopted sisters through the foster system, and they both suffered a lot of trauma at the hands of their birth families. It’s a full-time job managing the emotional problems & psychological issues that they have. She can’t work. One child was in a mental hospital for several months for suicidal tendencies. Even without mental health problems there is a deep loss for many who are adopted, I’ve read, and for the mothers who gave them up. I don’t discourage it but I think people need to be realistic and not go into it with rose colored glasses.
There are safety nets but they are under major attack right now. I donate to one such program, and while in HS my daughter volunteered, where single women raising children live in a home (called Well of Mercy) where they work to care for one another and the home, have child care and attend college. They stay there until they are ready to move into their own places. They have rules to follow (no drugs, alcohol, men at the home, etc). It's a wonderful program and if I didn't live in another state I would likely be volunteering myself.
You're right about the complications of adoption. I know many who have adopted and some even within the same family have more challenges than others.....but none have said they would rather not be born. Complications tend to be around a sense of abandonment, so more work in providing psychological supports early on is most helpful. Friends (who dated from 8th grade until college graduation -- then getting married, attempted to adopt twin boys at the age of 5. So many anger issues....one almost set the home on fire. Sadly, they couldn't continue with the adoption.
On the other hand I had a coworker who had three abortions---basically used it as contraception. She kept her fourth pregnancy and he was born with Down's syndrome. I don't know for a fact because we lost touch more than two decades ago, but I'm thinking he brought her tremendous joy and like with all children, plenty of challenges.
Undoubtedly and unfortunately. I think that is likely the larger portion. But I can imagine that there are some men who might wish to allow their child to live.
No doubt and their interests should be part of the conversation. All I'm saying is that if men were more proactive about supporting progeny, or, if society censured or penalized men who did not support instead of letting them off scot-free, like it does now, the the number of abortions might go down.
As it currently stands, most people on the pro-life side want to punish the woman for promiscuity. But no one ever suggests that any penalty be levied upon the men who are promiscuous and who cause pregnancies.
I say this is as an ardent pro-choicer. I think in the end, it is the woman's right to choose and am confortable with a reasonable time limit unless the woman's life is in danger. However, I am stung by the unequal treatment that society levies on both parties of a pregnancy. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here that is unaddressed.
If men wish to have a say in whether an abortion occurs when a woman gets pregnant then they must also submit to punishment if they refuse to support her. The woman is being punished by being forced to bear a child she doesn't want. The man must be punished as well, otherwise, it's unequal treatment under the law.
100% would love to see men be more responsible and be held to financially support and care for their children. Also support offering vasectomies and tubal ligation to adults (even subsidized).
I am pro-life, a Christian married to a ministry leader for 32 years, with 2 family members who volunteer at prolife centers. I know hundreds of pastors & thousands of Christians. I cannot say what each of these believes, but I assure you, I’ve never heard anyone teach that women ought to be punished if they get pregnant out of wedlock. Jesus himself did not condemn the “woman caught in adultery” (and ugh, in that account there is no mention of the man who obviously must have been caught too- because the world has had double standards for way too long!). Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” And of course, none could throw any because we all do things that are wrong. That is the stance I see most prolife people having. These centers offer all kinds of support for women and would also wholeheartedly like to see men step up to their responsibilities as well. The ones you referenced who want to punish must be a small fraction. I have no animosity toward the woman in an unwanted pregnancy, I just feel compelled to see the life of the child as valuable too.
I’m sorry if you have felt the sting of sexism. It has happened and it continues in some ways. I have felt it at times too. I personally think that 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
There is not an easy solution, but I appreciate having the discussion with you. Not sure if you believe in God or not, but with a kindly intent I say “May God bless you with peace and joy and love!”
Welll said JenR. The pro-abortion arguments, like this one by Melissa Knox, use exceedingly rare medical anomalies to justify the wanton killing of millions of unborn babies. They ignore any push to hold the male sperm donors accountable because that might also support the pro-life position.
Do let me put in a word here. Holding the man "accountable" is a separate issue--of course nobody likes deadbeat dads, who are notoriously difficult to police, and allow me to say I'm in favor of responsibility all around. But the woman who is pregnant can responsibly decide to terminate--or her doctor can advise her to do so--and I'm saying, "please have mercy on these people" and do not criminalize their decisions
Melissa, you are creating a straw man. No new state laws criminalize women who obtain abortions. Most of them are victims too. Some states defaulted to old laws as a result of the RvW decision, but I am sure those will quickly be corrected/updated.
Let’s show some mercy for the many women being coerced to have abortions, and above all mercy for the innocent unborn children!
I've seen women wait in line for abortions they desperately need, afraid because demonstrators are shouting "murderer!" at them and they want to get the procedure done and go home. I have not seen women "coerced" into having abortions. As I write, women are spending money they don't have for babysitters and gas to find a state that will allow them the abortions they need.
I hear this mentioned but have not seen a state law that suggests it, much less a bunch of state laws. The prosecutable person in states where abortions would be illegal are the practitioners, not the woman seeking to abort. Can you tell me which state(s) has penalties for the woman?
When a miscarriage is a crime, any medical procedure associated with it--like the D&C I had after a miscarriage, a procedure also used to abort, is criminalized. That's also happened in New York City at Catholic hospitals, for example--when the woman is miscarrying but there's still a heartbeat but the fetus is dead. On numerous occasions, doctors have waited, fearing reprisal, until the woman is in sepsis. It's not easy to say when a miscarriage is complete. When I miscarried at ten weeks, I brought what had come out of me to show the doctor; he said, "looks like everything came out" but I continued to bleed and developed an infection, so he advised and performed a D&C. Without which, incidentally, I would have been in sepsis, and infertile.
I'm still hoping it will be possible to continue talking and both sides listening, while retaining women's constitutional and human rights to abortion. There is a great deal of fear now; I'm not sure why. Historically, abortion wasn't the explosive topic it is now--Leslie Rogan's book explores popular feeling in the eighteenth century: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5;brand=ucpress
It is truly depressing to see FAIR publish an opinion piece written by someone who has too little understanding of the topic to offer an opinion. Among the many fatal intellectual flaws in this piece which reveal the author's misunderstanding of American Constitutional law is her comment: "Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver." That is a shocking misinterpretation not only of the recent abortion decision itself but of the very way the U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution work. This decision does not in any way "outlaw" abortion and does not compel a single woman to deliver a single child, nor did Justice Alito suggest such a thing. The decision merely holds that the Constitution is silent on abortion, and nothing more.
Any author who so fundamentally misunderstands a Supreme Court opinion -- and the very nature of how the American legal system works -- should not be given a platform by FAIR to publish an article about a topic she does not understand. There are intellectually defensible arguments on both sides of this Constitutional question but Dr. Knox does not offer any of them.
Agree but I like to see articles like this because it makes clear where someone like Melissa stands. Then we can debate what the law should be. Right now there is no such debate.
This is the first article on abortion I have read on FAIR, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the FAIR focus of intolerance and racism. Maybe FAIR is going to start posting on climate change or any other hit button issues? Very disappointing.
Have you noticed that the various groups that have sprung up recently have ostensibly different missions but are all becoming indistinguishable from one another?
I am surprised that this article made it through to publication. There are so many factual areas and ways the author just seems to not understand the constitution or how our country was meant to operate. So many great comments, though. I think this is the first comment section where I learned more from the comments than the article!
Knowing FAIR's mission, I was actually a little excited when I saw this article's title. Would it be a thoughtful piece on how people with differing views on abortion can build bridges? The first couple of paragraphs seemed promising.
Unfortunately, paragraphs 3 and 4 made it clear the article was not worth reading. No sense spending much time on an abortion law article by someone who understands neither Constitutional law nor Justice Alito's position.
But my main concern is the subject matter: What do arguments about abortion law, pro or con, have to do with FAIR's mission? Is FAIR struggling to find qualified authors with messages in line with the actual purpose of the organization?
You lost me after “Like Shylock, Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver.”
I’m pro-choice, but this is straight up disingenuous & must be called out. The SCOTUS ruling did not ban abortion, it sent it back to the states.
The fact that neither side of the abortion battle ever really thought Roe would be overturned led to both sides upping the ante. Outright bans in trigger laws on one side, shouting your abortion as an FU to pro-lifers on the other. The vast majority of Americans are somewhat in-between: supporting abortion for any reason in the first trimester, and with further limits relating to the life of the mother or late-discovered birth defects for the baby.
You can be upset about the state of things, but to deny Roe had issues since the day it was handed down is ignorant. Even RBG said it was shaky.
Put your energy into your own state’s laws on abortion. Ignore the national Dems who were more than happy to raise money & campaign on abortion without ever doing the hard work of legislation (and no, the bill they’ve put up recently goes beyond Roe & what most of the country will support, so that’s more nothing).
There are some good points, but this essay states that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. That is an unconscionable factual misrepresentation about a key aspect which every reasoned discussion needs to acknowledge.
I have supported abortion rights my entire adult life, and have voted for the Democratic party for that same lifetime. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of FAIR.
And I still highly value being honest and accurate.
FAIR should have folks from more than one side of the issue review articles like this for basic accuracy, and ask the author to accurately present the facts, even if freely offering their own opinions on non-factual matters. (That is, I don't suggest that reviewers censor opinions, only press authors to present facts honestly.)
Those opinions could have been presented without distortions of factual matters. Please do better in the future, if you want to be a non-partisan organization. The truth is, we humans have a hard time seeing our own blind spots, so we all need reviewers with different blind spots. I don't want to portray the author as unusual in that regard. But I do want FAIR to do better in helping authors remove the kind of errors which authors have difficulty in seeing in their work.
This author, in arguing against it, has unwittingly demonstrated the profound wisdom of the Supreme Court decision: we the people are now debating it. One issue I feel is left out of the discussion: what about the father? Does he have no responsibilities or rights?
I also question what this is doing on the FAIR substack. I cannot see a connection to intolerance or racism, in the "immutable characteristic" category.
I hope that I can some day misunderstand a situation so thoroughly that FAIR will give me a platform to tell everyone about it. There’s so much to disagree with here, but I’ll just mention two.
First, as Elizabeth said below, SCOTUS did not ban abortion. Melissa says that Alito is hungry for power, but what the court essentially decided was that it wasn’t up to them to decide for the whole nation on the abortion issue. There’s this weird thing going on right now where people think that it’s “authoritarian” that the whole country now gets a say on the issue, instead of 9 people.
Second, running throughout the whole essay is this idea that everyone is thinking about this issue in black and white, but Melissa has a more nuanced view. It’s quite a selective nuance, however, as she takes on a more black/white stance when it’s convenient. For example, she links to a study that says the majority (61%) of Americans favor the right of women to choose. So, pro-abortion, right? No. Here are the two choices from the study: legal in all/most cases vs illegal in all/most cases. In other words, those who want abortions without exception are grouped with those who want abortion with exceptions, and those who want no abortions whatsoever are grouped with those who want no abortions, with some exceptions. This distinction is fundamentally meaningless because most Americans are somewhere in the middle. Most Americans have a more nuanced view, despite what Melissa says.
Based on the essay, her “more nuanced” view involves misunderstanding jurisprudence, straw-manning the entire populace, and dragging out every exceedingly rare pro-abortion trope. Nuance is also lost when she repeatedly talks about getting pregnant as something that just seems to “happen” to women.
She begins the last paragraph with, “By disallowing abortion, the court fails to protect those who need protection the most”. As stated above, they didn’t “disallow” abortion. Beyond that though, one thing I’ve noticed more recently is that pro-abortion people used to at least mouth the words that the unborn child exists and should be considered, but that time seems to be long gone. Now there is never any mention of the unborn child (or fetus, if you want to conveniently dehumanize it). Its worth is literally nothing in today’s discourse. You could argue that the unborn child’s life is worth less than that of the mother, but to ignore it entirely is the sort of black-and-white thinking that Melissa is taking part in while simultaneously railing against.
I could go on and on, but the sort of sloppy thinking displayed in Melissa’s essay gets us nowhere. She should have a right to say it, and I appreciate that FAIR allows for diversity of thought, but this is particularly weak. I look forward to seeing more worth reading in the comments section than the article itself, which seems to be happening more and more around here, as of late.
EDIT: fixed typos
Thank you for reading and responding. We are committed to including diverse voices and encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse on all topics, including this one.
This Substack piece reflects one perspective. If you’d like to join the discussion, we welcome and encourage you to send your own to submissions@fairforall.org.
I guess the question I would have here is: how are you defining “good-faith”? I would say that a “bad-faith” argument would be one where the author attributes to others arguments or beliefs without providing any evidence to back it up. Alito wrote a long, long opinion in the Dobbs decision. If she thought his reasoning made him like Shylock, why not quote something, anything, that he said which supports this claim? That would be one thing. It’s a whole other thing to assume intent on his part without any evidence. Alito wasn’t the only one misrepresented in this essay but I’m not going to spell out every instance in which Melissa presumed to be a mind-reader. See the other comments for that.
Second, is it an example of “good-faith discourse” to ignore critical comments (even clearly respectful ones) and virtually only engage with those with whom you agree? It would be one thing if Melissa didn’t look at the comments to her essay at all, but you can find her liking one-sentence comments that amount to, “great essay” while not even touching the majority of comments which disagree with her. Is this an example of the FAIR standard of good-faith discourse?
Third, a good example of how it should be done (so far) is in today’s essay on the same topic. That author quotes people and takes them at their word, based on those quotes. I would say that’s in good faith. In the comments section you see quite a number of people who strenuously disagree with him, but they disagree with his POINT, and in a way that is enlightening to readers. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, both the essay and its comments have interesting perspective. Contrast that with Melissa’s essay, where most of the comments are focused on the various parts where she was factually incorrect.
In sum, the issue isn’t that a voice such as Melissa’s shouldn’t be heard, but I believe that her essay was written in bad-faith, based on her lack of evidence, lack of understanding, and routine mischaracterization of those with whom she disagrees. This essay doesn’t add to the conversation, it just rehashes already-common misunderstandings. FAIR should not abide such bad-faith, mushy thinking.
Agree with a lot of what you said.
This is a moronic piece of cluelessness. I love the beginning, looking for deep intellectual meaning, but you failed within the first comparison. Alito and SCOTUS did not provide mercy -- they provided noting other than the rule of law. Your weak comparison is amateurish at worst, naive at best. No rights were stripped, only a bad decision removed from the history books, delivered to the States and We The People as the law requires to make a decision on this gravely important matter. Of course this does not fit into your brilliants but lacking presentation of a great play comparator. You are better than that... especially considering your writing skills are fantastic.
Thank you. With titles like this I read the comments first.
So I don’t have to waist my time reading the article.
You have it 1000% correct on the law.
Ms. Penny, Your comment is vapid and grossly assumptive. Making a character challenge from my comment means you're void of the understanding of my comment. As a society, we all must show more grace and give mercy to those in need, and I lead the way in these two virtues. However, the story that you reference highlights the laziness of the writers ability to use a story line that has zero (not hyperbole) to do with what SCOTUS ruling--a ruling in the law, not in someones feelings. SCOTUS has a job to rule solely based on the merits of the law. They ruled the original ruling, per RBG was wholly flawed and needed to be returned to the States. I hope my demonstration of showing you grace will intern give you hope there is grace and mercy in this world-- and that you should truly dig deeper to understand someone's comment and avoid jumping in with the loud, clueless keyboard cowboys of our society and be a knowledgable guiding light. Remember, snide comments are the lowest form of wit. All the best, B
SCOTUS did not "disallow" abortion; it put the issue back to the individual states. Our system of government doesn't place law-making powers with the courts. "Allowing" abortion is a law, a rule. One that should be made by a rule-making body - either Congress at the Federal level or the state legislatures. No matter how you feel about the right of a person to end a fetus, baby's life, when life begins, exceptions etc - that is the fact of our government. I will leave aside the questions of the various state rules etc - however I will note that Germany will not prosecute (abortion is illegal) those abortions occurring within 12 weeks. The US had no rules whatsoever... There is a rational middle ground, but it must be LEGISLATED within the actual rule-making bodies.
Well, I'd see abortion as a constitutional right.
Then there needs to be a constitutional amendment to say such. There is not.
For 50 years, the Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly affirmed that abortion is a right protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Just because it was affirmed via interpreted decisions, doesn’t turn it into a constitutional right (it’s not directly IN the constitution..) Who remembers Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs The Board of Ed.? It’s not the first time a decision has been overturned.
There is nothing about women in the constitution. See this: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-there-are-no-women-in-the-constitution
Yes, the left had 50 years to seek a constitutional amendment through the convention of states.
They did not. They have only themselves to be angry with.
Wanting to see something as a Constitutional right and having it as a Constitutional right are two different things. Even RBG knew Roe was shaky.
I agree with Elizabeth that middle ground can only be reached through legislation. This is not what national Dems have been bringing to the floor - legislation that goes beyond Roe - when decades of polling shows that the majority of Americans support abortion for any reason in the first trimester, and with greater limits further along for the life of the mother and late-discovered birth defects of the baby.
agree 100%. The entire question highlights the corruption and excessive politics of Congress, which is need of reform. Congress has wholly abdicated its responsibility to compromise and pass federal legislation. Anger should be directed to our Congressmen and Congresswomen, who no longer do their jobs but spend their time fundraising, posturing and positioning themselves for future political or lobbying positions. The popularity of Congress is even beneath that of our current potus, and that is saying something.
Middle ground can only be achieve with an amendment to the Constitution. Any legislation, even though it may be bipartisan, would still have to pass muster with the Constitution. Legislation must be constitutional first and foremost.
Why can’t it be a federal law like any other? (Serious question- plenty of laws are enacted which don’t have to be an amendment to the Constitution- which would be a massive hurdle getting states to ratify it. We can barely get laws passed as it is.)
If a bipartisan bill was passed in the House, the Senate and signed by POTUS that made gun ownership illegal, in a sense - took away the right to bare arms, any citizen would be in their right to challenge this new law all the way up to SCOTUS. And would likely win. The Constitution has primacy. Federal laws cannot supersede the Constitution. What this means, is that those laws you speak of must either clearly not violate the Constitution or are so murky that no one sought to litigate the matter up to SCOTUS.
I see how that would work for gun laws, when guns are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but I still wonder if it would be necessary here when SCOTUS just ruled the court shouldn’t have taken a stance on abortion already, and sent it to the states. But maybe you’re right! Thank you for explaining what you meant a bit more.
Dr. Knox, you commented, "Well, I'd see abortion as a constitutional right." You have a Ph.D. in literature and have written on literature and psychoanalysis. With respect, what qualifies you to have an opinion about Constitutional interpretation? Jurisprudence is as much a specialized field as medicine, so I have to wonder what makes you, as a legal lay person, believe you have any more right to an opinion about how the U.S. Constitution and our federal system works than a medical lay person would have a right to an opinion about which antibiotic to use for a specific infection? There is no shame in a non-specialist having an appropriate sense of humility about his or her understandable limitations. There is no reason you SHOULD have an opinion about the Constitution, any more than I (a non physician) should have an opinion about medicine. But I would therefore never presume to write an article about pharmacology.
Actually, both the fourth and fourteenth amendments have been interpreted as protecting the right to abortion: tps://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion
As a practicing Constitutional attorney for over 30 years, who has litigated Constitutional questions in federal court, I am certainly aware of the Court's decisions on that topic. And appropriately qualified people can, and have, offered a variety of opinions about the subject. My question is what give YOU a qualification to have an opinion, one way or the other, as to which argument is better grounded in the Constitution?
I'm sure you have opinions about all kinds of things outside of your profession about which you're well-informed. It's possible to be well-informed about the law without being a lawyer. Any citizen can read and form an opinion about the Constitution--and many do.
No, it is not true that any citizen can read and form a meaningful opinion about the Constitution, any more than any citizen can read and form a meaningful opinion about a medical journal article. Even explicit words and phrases in the Constitution do not always have the same meaning they might have in everyday 21st Century speech and require a great deal of context (about both the words themselves and the about way the Constitution functions) to understand in a meaningful way, and the present issue (abortion) is even more difficult because it involves a concept that is NOT found in any of the explicit words of the Constitution. Even when we have text to read, its meaning is not always clear or intuitive: the full meaning of text as seemingly clear as "freedom of speech" and "free exercise of religion" is not clear without a great deal of background (what speech is protected by the First Amendment is one of the more complex areas of jurisprudence, and the meaning of freedom of religion is even more difficult to apply) and the issue of abortion is even less transparent since there is no text to read at all; understanding the Constitutional implications of a non-textual concept such as abortion requires a deep understanding of the way the Constitution works, our federal system, subtle legal concepts and theories layered upon each other, and hundreds of years of legal history, none of which can be obtained simply by reading the Constitution itself.
I disagree with you there Dan. This article clearly labeled an opinion piece, and Knox is an American citizen. Therefore she, like all voting citizens, has a voice in the law of our country, regardless of expertise.
Every American citizen has a voice in the POLITICAL process and the right to say -- and vote -- what she feels the law SHOULD be. But this article is not that. This is not an article about what laws our legislatures (federal and state) should enact regarding a particular topic; it is an article that purports to comment on what the law IS -- i.e., what the Constitution says with regard to a particular topic -- and that is a subject requiring specialized background to interpret and understand.
And to the extent the article expresses an opinion about what the Supreme Court should do -- as opposed to what the legislature should do -- that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court should NOT be influenced by public opinion; indeed the Court's function in our system of checks-and-balances is to act as a restraint on public opinion. The public, through their elected representatives, enact the laws; the Supreme Court's function is to say, if needed, "No, you may not do that, the Constitution prevents it," and that decision by the Court must be based on the text and context of the Constitution, and nothing else.
There are plenty of times in our history when a majority would have been glad to use their numerical power and political strength to oppress a minority (either a minority population or a minority opinion); the Constitution and Supreme Court are the checks on that abuse, and for that system to work the Court MUST ignore public opinion and look to nothing but the Constitution. Citizens have a voice in what laws are enacted, but they do not, cannot, and must not have any voice at all in how the Constitution is interpreted with regard to limits on those laws.
Thank you for this Dan. That was the point of my first comment. The author writes in a manner that displays her fundamental lack of understanding about our system of government. Civics teachers in this country have failed to do their jobs (assuming she was brought up in the US...)
Please support your "see". You may wish it to be, but it is most definitely not. Do you "see" it as a natural right or a civil right?
Do you even understand what a "right" is? I'm not sure you do.
Hi! Are you an American citizen? I see you teach at a German university.
You mentioned Ben Shapiro several times. I stopped listening to him about a 6 months ago or so, so I don't know what he's been saying recently. In the past, he was always clear that he was against abortion except in the case where the mother's life was at risk - which you detailed here. You and he would be on the same page in those scenarios.
Each state has their own constitution, which is inferior to the federal constitution. Some states have abortion as a constitutional right. Some states laws allow partial birth abortion. Other states do not allow abortion at all, only allow abortion before a heartbeat can be detected, during the first trimester, etc. The laws vary. To get a federal constitutional amendment, the people vote on the amendment. It is highly unlikely at this time that the people of all 50 states, who have such varying viewpoints, will agree to one amendment to the constitution.
Also, Americans are allowed to freely travel across state lines.
Yes, I am an American citizen.
Thank you for clarifying!
Here's to hoping Melissa and Ben debate this and other issues
I'd rather see a Change My Mind type scenario. Those are more low-key and less antagonistic.
This must be another example of that nuance you were talking about
I said something similar in my comment. Wanting something to be legal- but only in a way that one side accepts (up until birth w/ no limits)- is not the path forward. Both parties took it for granted that they could turn the crazy up to 11 and never work towards a compromise- like most other industrialized nations w/ legal abortion.
Come on, this is a very bad article. E.g.:
"Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver."
Nope, his ruling simply says that the constitution is silent on the matter. And:
"... he’d have to see what the right to privacy guaranteed in both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments truly means"
Except that there isn't a "right to privacy" guaranteed in either amendment. Even that is a judicial construction.
Articles as bad as this do nothing to convince anyone but the already-convinced.
If one is trying to make the mercy argument, one might want to start by not misrepresenting the SCOTUS ruling. Either the author never read Dobbs, or is intentionally stating that it disallows abortion. Either way, whatever follows can be ignored, because it’s all built on this initial falsehood.
Please, do bring in multiple viewpoints on issues, but not at the expense of your standards.
Surprised at this post on the FAIR substack. Not well reasoned or well written, and seems far outside the mission of FAIR...isn't it pro-human? You'd think a more balanced and nuanced view would be appropriate.
The irony of making mercy the central theme of an article advocating for a mother's "right" to mercilessly kill her own child
I’m pro-choice but I disagreed with this piece because SCOTUS sent it back to the states, it did ban abortion.
I had an abortion during college, & it was a traumatic experience. I am older now & was blessed with two children. I can never know what life would have been like if I hadn’t had my abortion.
I don’t need to share my story because it’s hard to even write about it. But I am. I’ve been a Democrat since I first voted, and over the years they went from “safe, legal, rare” to “shout your abortion.” The latter always made me uncomfortable. It didn’t make space for women like me who made the choice under duress-- who may still be wracked with guilt.
But from the Right I see no move for understanding. Though pro-life groups often promote stories like mine of women who were traumatized by their abortion -- It never takes long to read a comment dripping with cruelty -- usually by a man.
I’m sure your pain is sincere and tragic; I am sorry that you carry that with you and I pray you find relief some day.
I agree with the disingenuous nature of much of the pro-choice side. They also have a large share of ridiculous cherry-picked atrocities (like raped 10 year olds) and faked situations (like “women with ectopic pregnancies will be left to die.”). It’s all designed to paint pro-life as evil. Meanwhile they also minimize or deny the fact that a life is killed. That is where they err in “understanding.” No concern whatsoever for that innocent life. And there is little mention, if any, of the responsibility of the man & woman having consensual sex. And no mention of the father’s interests, which seems hard and wrong and lacking understanding to me.
I don’t think most arguments are designed to inflict pain, though some comments are, but the topic and reality itself are inherently fraught with pain.
I didn’t respond to this but I think it’s wrong to paint all pro-life people as evil. I’ve made it a point to listen to more people that I don’t really WANT to... because I prejudge what they’ll say. I listened to a Triggernometry episode where they talked to a pro-life doctor there and it was hard to do, but he brought up things that I could look up later. There’s no harm done by listening.
I am not painting pro-life people as evil. I think we're all pro-life, but we're not all anti-choice. I think those who are anti-abortion fail to see the consequences of anti-abortion legislation. These consequences are severe for women, for mothers, for men, because any pregnancy is tinged with fear. Here's one of many voices on the issues with banning abortion: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/opinion/miscarriages-abortion-ban.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DKDm8SiOMNAo6B_EGKYKt4bNIpxTWSS9JadbYlQ-Zuz-hZekZkTU-ovp6A0twjEhkClLiSDCkwzo6fGvcx6yPrZW20b7t2ze225UvWdWbgW_HA1XR1JhJupcRlaV76inQOk6uVRbF3iMJsnqt0XuAMTjgFZSCLv_jtGk8-bI3ANkeAn1FwD-JJWjjTnsqe4qYCcmhRCVHGTHB54wUs-Y8WeYNXbOukcUlWKIepiq4RC2doMI6iG5QxIoDXnL5purPMwgee_YRXk3v2plZOEGzVcrWLkg&smid=url-share
Thank you for your response, Jen. I don’t ask for anyone to accept my choice, but to keep it in mind that for some (many?) if us who’ve had an abortion, it was a decision made in a state of panic.
I agree with what you are saying. It’s not possible to talk about this issue without mentioning the other life. I know how the pro-choice side speaks about it, and it’s denialism. It’s not a mani-pedi, it’s a serious matter and the “shout your abortion” crowd does nothing to inspire compassion.
I had twins later through IVF (my eggs, husband’s sperm), and got to witness life from its earliest moments. On one side after several cycles of implanted embryos you appreciate how delicate life is, how everything can be going fine until in one moment- it’s not. I loved them as my babies since the first time I saw their ultrasounds. I cannot fathom allowing abortion for any reason in the 2nd trimester onward. I also can’t imagine a woman that far along wanting an abortion. Life of the mother, unforeseen birth defects of some level (I’m not a doctor, or an ethicist... I’ll leave those larger issues to them).
I am pro-life and also went through IVF to have my babies at age 40 and a week shy of 42. I gave all of our embryos a chance for life. Both babies were rushed to the NICU (daughter had cord around her neck and she was an emergency C-section after a day of trying to dilate. I never even got to see her before she went to the NICU. Son was a planned C-section 17 months after daughter because he was going to be large (10.2 and 21 inches) and breech. The day after his birth he had a stroke. He is ok because we saw the seizures (many don't) but I don't doubt that if the doctor knew from an ultrasound that he would suffer a stroke after birth (by detecting something wrong in the left center lobe), they would have suggested abortion. Life serves up its challenges to us all. I would love to see more adoptions.
Having said that, I would never ever suggest to know the challenges you faced in college and the reason you chose abortion. My expression of mercy, unlike in this essay, is to show my concern, as a person who believes in all life, for you despite our differences. Wishing you the best.
I’m glad to hear that your children are okay. My twins were born at 37 weeks, and we were spared the NICU though I was worried about an early birth my whole pregnancy (37 wks is considered full term for twins.) You NICU parents are made of strong stuff. Thankfully there is so much more that can be done to help little ones survive these days... heart surgeries in utero even.
I don’t feel any I’ll will towards pro-life people. I do worry about the lack of a social safety net that most European countries have - along with abortion limits between 12-15 weeks. The US is a different situation.
I think adoption is a good solution for many, but it’s never as easy as people think it is. My good friend adopted sisters through the foster system, and they both suffered a lot of trauma at the hands of their birth families. It’s a full-time job managing the emotional problems & psychological issues that they have. She can’t work. One child was in a mental hospital for several months for suicidal tendencies. Even without mental health problems there is a deep loss for many who are adopted, I’ve read, and for the mothers who gave them up. I don’t discourage it but I think people need to be realistic and not go into it with rose colored glasses.
There are safety nets but they are under major attack right now. I donate to one such program, and while in HS my daughter volunteered, where single women raising children live in a home (called Well of Mercy) where they work to care for one another and the home, have child care and attend college. They stay there until they are ready to move into their own places. They have rules to follow (no drugs, alcohol, men at the home, etc). It's a wonderful program and if I didn't live in another state I would likely be volunteering myself.
You're right about the complications of adoption. I know many who have adopted and some even within the same family have more challenges than others.....but none have said they would rather not be born. Complications tend to be around a sense of abandonment, so more work in providing psychological supports early on is most helpful. Friends (who dated from 8th grade until college graduation -- then getting married, attempted to adopt twin boys at the age of 5. So many anger issues....one almost set the home on fire. Sadly, they couldn't continue with the adoption.
On the other hand I had a coworker who had three abortions---basically used it as contraception. She kept her fourth pregnancy and he was born with Down's syndrome. I don't know for a fact because we lost touch more than two decades ago, but I'm thinking he brought her tremendous joy and like with all children, plenty of challenges.
Father's interest? I have no doubt that many abortions occur due to the father's lack of interest.
Undoubtedly and unfortunately. I think that is likely the larger portion. But I can imagine that there are some men who might wish to allow their child to live.
No doubt and their interests should be part of the conversation. All I'm saying is that if men were more proactive about supporting progeny, or, if society censured or penalized men who did not support instead of letting them off scot-free, like it does now, the the number of abortions might go down.
As it currently stands, most people on the pro-life side want to punish the woman for promiscuity. But no one ever suggests that any penalty be levied upon the men who are promiscuous and who cause pregnancies.
I say this is as an ardent pro-choicer. I think in the end, it is the woman's right to choose and am confortable with a reasonable time limit unless the woman's life is in danger. However, I am stung by the unequal treatment that society levies on both parties of a pregnancy. There is a huge amount of hypocrisy here that is unaddressed.
If men wish to have a say in whether an abortion occurs when a woman gets pregnant then they must also submit to punishment if they refuse to support her. The woman is being punished by being forced to bear a child she doesn't want. The man must be punished as well, otherwise, it's unequal treatment under the law.
100% would love to see men be more responsible and be held to financially support and care for their children. Also support offering vasectomies and tubal ligation to adults (even subsidized).
I am pro-life, a Christian married to a ministry leader for 32 years, with 2 family members who volunteer at prolife centers. I know hundreds of pastors & thousands of Christians. I cannot say what each of these believes, but I assure you, I’ve never heard anyone teach that women ought to be punished if they get pregnant out of wedlock. Jesus himself did not condemn the “woman caught in adultery” (and ugh, in that account there is no mention of the man who obviously must have been caught too- because the world has had double standards for way too long!). Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” And of course, none could throw any because we all do things that are wrong. That is the stance I see most prolife people having. These centers offer all kinds of support for women and would also wholeheartedly like to see men step up to their responsibilities as well. The ones you referenced who want to punish must be a small fraction. I have no animosity toward the woman in an unwanted pregnancy, I just feel compelled to see the life of the child as valuable too.
I’m sorry if you have felt the sting of sexism. It has happened and it continues in some ways. I have felt it at times too. I personally think that 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
There is not an easy solution, but I appreciate having the discussion with you. Not sure if you believe in God or not, but with a kindly intent I say “May God bless you with peace and joy and love!”
Welll said JenR. The pro-abortion arguments, like this one by Melissa Knox, use exceedingly rare medical anomalies to justify the wanton killing of millions of unborn babies. They ignore any push to hold the male sperm donors accountable because that might also support the pro-life position.
Do let me put in a word here. Holding the man "accountable" is a separate issue--of course nobody likes deadbeat dads, who are notoriously difficult to police, and allow me to say I'm in favor of responsibility all around. But the woman who is pregnant can responsibly decide to terminate--or her doctor can advise her to do so--and I'm saying, "please have mercy on these people" and do not criminalize their decisions
Melissa, you are creating a straw man. No new state laws criminalize women who obtain abortions. Most of them are victims too. Some states defaulted to old laws as a result of the RvW decision, but I am sure those will quickly be corrected/updated.
Let’s show some mercy for the many women being coerced to have abortions, and above all mercy for the innocent unborn children!
I've seen women wait in line for abortions they desperately need, afraid because demonstrators are shouting "murderer!" at them and they want to get the procedure done and go home. I have not seen women "coerced" into having abortions. As I write, women are spending money they don't have for babysitters and gas to find a state that will allow them the abortions they need.
I hear this mentioned but have not seen a state law that suggests it, much less a bunch of state laws. The prosecutable person in states where abortions would be illegal are the practitioners, not the woman seeking to abort. Can you tell me which state(s) has penalties for the woman?
In both Oklahoma and Georgia, women have been jailed for having miscarriages. Here's one link, but there are others: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
When a miscarriage is a crime, any medical procedure associated with it--like the D&C I had after a miscarriage, a procedure also used to abort, is criminalized. That's also happened in New York City at Catholic hospitals, for example--when the woman is miscarrying but there's still a heartbeat but the fetus is dead. On numerous occasions, doctors have waited, fearing reprisal, until the woman is in sepsis. It's not easy to say when a miscarriage is complete. When I miscarried at ten weeks, I brought what had come out of me to show the doctor; he said, "looks like everything came out" but I continued to bleed and developed an infection, so he advised and performed a D&C. Without which, incidentally, I would have been in sepsis, and infertile.
I'm still hoping it will be possible to continue talking and both sides listening, while retaining women's constitutional and human rights to abortion. There is a great deal of fear now; I'm not sure why. Historically, abortion wasn't the explosive topic it is now--Leslie Rogan's book explores popular feeling in the eighteenth century: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft967nb5z5;brand=ucpress
Ugh - first paragraph should read “it did not ban abortion.”
(I guessed that from context, but thanks for confirming)
Absolutely---it literally jumps off the page and slaps one in the face, it's so obviously obtuse!
It is truly depressing to see FAIR publish an opinion piece written by someone who has too little understanding of the topic to offer an opinion. Among the many fatal intellectual flaws in this piece which reveal the author's misunderstanding of American Constitutional law is her comment: "Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver." That is a shocking misinterpretation not only of the recent abortion decision itself but of the very way the U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution work. This decision does not in any way "outlaw" abortion and does not compel a single woman to deliver a single child, nor did Justice Alito suggest such a thing. The decision merely holds that the Constitution is silent on abortion, and nothing more.
Any author who so fundamentally misunderstands a Supreme Court opinion -- and the very nature of how the American legal system works -- should not be given a platform by FAIR to publish an article about a topic she does not understand. There are intellectually defensible arguments on both sides of this Constitutional question but Dr. Knox does not offer any of them.
I am accustomed to fair, honest articles from FAIR. What a shock this was to read this deeply biased piece of pro-abortion propaganda.
Agree but I like to see articles like this because it makes clear where someone like Melissa stands. Then we can debate what the law should be. Right now there is no such debate.
This is the first article on abortion I have read on FAIR, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the FAIR focus of intolerance and racism. Maybe FAIR is going to start posting on climate change or any other hit button issues? Very disappointing.
Have you noticed that the various groups that have sprung up recently have ostensibly different missions but are all becoming indistinguishable from one another?
I am surprised that this article made it through to publication. There are so many factual areas and ways the author just seems to not understand the constitution or how our country was meant to operate. So many great comments, though. I think this is the first comment section where I learned more from the comments than the article!
Why get involved in the abortion debate? Stick to your main mandate.
Knowing FAIR's mission, I was actually a little excited when I saw this article's title. Would it be a thoughtful piece on how people with differing views on abortion can build bridges? The first couple of paragraphs seemed promising.
Unfortunately, paragraphs 3 and 4 made it clear the article was not worth reading. No sense spending much time on an abortion law article by someone who understands neither Constitutional law nor Justice Alito's position.
But my main concern is the subject matter: What do arguments about abortion law, pro or con, have to do with FAIR's mission? Is FAIR struggling to find qualified authors with messages in line with the actual purpose of the organization?
What does this have to do with FAIR’s mission?
You lost me after “Like Shylock, Alito wants an ironclad contract: If a woman gets pregnant, then she must deliver.”
I’m pro-choice, but this is straight up disingenuous & must be called out. The SCOTUS ruling did not ban abortion, it sent it back to the states.
The fact that neither side of the abortion battle ever really thought Roe would be overturned led to both sides upping the ante. Outright bans in trigger laws on one side, shouting your abortion as an FU to pro-lifers on the other. The vast majority of Americans are somewhat in-between: supporting abortion for any reason in the first trimester, and with further limits relating to the life of the mother or late-discovered birth defects for the baby.
You can be upset about the state of things, but to deny Roe had issues since the day it was handed down is ignorant. Even RBG said it was shaky.
Put your energy into your own state’s laws on abortion. Ignore the national Dems who were more than happy to raise money & campaign on abortion without ever doing the hard work of legislation (and no, the bill they’ve put up recently goes beyond Roe & what most of the country will support, so that’s more nothing).
There are some good points, but this essay states that the Supreme Court has banned abortions. That is an unconscionable factual misrepresentation about a key aspect which every reasoned discussion needs to acknowledge.
I have supported abortion rights my entire adult life, and have voted for the Democratic party for that same lifetime. I am now an enthusiastic supporter of FAIR.
And I still highly value being honest and accurate.
FAIR should have folks from more than one side of the issue review articles like this for basic accuracy, and ask the author to accurately present the facts, even if freely offering their own opinions on non-factual matters. (That is, I don't suggest that reviewers censor opinions, only press authors to present facts honestly.)
Those opinions could have been presented without distortions of factual matters. Please do better in the future, if you want to be a non-partisan organization. The truth is, we humans have a hard time seeing our own blind spots, so we all need reviewers with different blind spots. I don't want to portray the author as unusual in that regard. But I do want FAIR to do better in helping authors remove the kind of errors which authors have difficulty in seeing in their work.
This author, in arguing against it, has unwittingly demonstrated the profound wisdom of the Supreme Court decision: we the people are now debating it. One issue I feel is left out of the discussion: what about the father? Does he have no responsibilities or rights?
I also question what this is doing on the FAIR substack. I cannot see a connection to intolerance or racism, in the "immutable characteristic" category.