Lessons from the Kate Cox Case

This is an addendum to my December 11 post, “The Fetus as Political Fetish.”

Photo by davisuko on Unsplash

1. If you are “pro-life,” you should now realize that you are not well-served by politicians and governments who are perfectly happy—so long as they themselves don’t have to watch it—to doom a newborn who is not genetically equipped for life to horrible suffering and almost certain death. And these are often the same people who argue against abortions on the grounds that fetuses suffer pain during termination procedures. Do you see the contradiction there?

2. If you are “anti-abortion” but “with exceptions” (such as “if the mother’s life is in danger”) you should now realize (a) that “in danger” is always open to interpretation; and (b) that interpretation is entirely at the whim of government officials with no medical knowledge or experience, and who can always find a way to work around any “exceptions.”

3. If you consider yourself against “pro-choice,” you should now realize that there is no way to avoid “choices” being made. The issue is WHO makes the choice: the woman whose life/family/future baby are affected or a government official who may well be far more interested in retaining power than protecting anyone’s life.

4. If you are attracted to a “moderate” or “compromise” line—such as that espoused by Nikki Haley—you should now realize that leaving abortion “up to the states” (rather than instituting a national ban) is not “moderate” in any way if states behave as Texas did in this case. And there are plenty who will.

Haley will try to convince you that “up to the states” is equivalent to “up to the people.” Don’t fall for that democratic-sounding rationale for your reproductive life hanging on where you were born and/or where you can afford to live, and the political agendas of those you elect to “represent” you, but who may have been gerrymandered into office.

5. If you are “pro-choice,” you should realize that the NATIONALLY INSTITUTED protection of reproductive rights and reproductive justice SHOULD NEVER be allowed to take a back seat to other issues—as it did in 2016, when Bernie Sanders described Planned Parenthood and NARAL as “establishment” and abortion as a “social issue.” Sanders persuaded many young voters that reproductive issues were peripheral disturbances to getting out the “real” message of economic inequality” (as though loss of control over ones reproductive life has no impact on ones economic situation.) In an interview with Rachel Maddow, he described the fight for reproductive rights as a distraction from “serious issues.”

I doubt that Sanders believes this any more. He’s been schooled. But the problem of “progressives” bumping reproductive justice further down their list of “serious issues” remains. Those, for example, who are contemplating not voting for Biden because of his support for Israel—or because some more ostentatiously “left” candidates are appealing (as Bernie did) to their sense of outrage over the “establishment”—need to be reminded that Biden’s “establishment” stands between them and an alternative (whether Trump—most likely—or someone else) that has openly declared opposition to reproductive and other basic rights.

6. For everyone: There’s nothing wrong with being a “single-issue” voter when the issue is as central to human equality, freedom, and justice as this one. Moreover, this “single issue” is very likely to be the tip of the iceberg, beneath which is an agenda to roll back other rights—and democracy itself.

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST IN WHATEVER FORM YOU WISH. SHARE SUBSTACK LINK OR IF YOU PREFER, COPY AND PAST TEXT TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

December 11 post: