Abortion Hypocrisy in Texas

Video Links [TikTok] [YouTube]

In the grand theater of human contradictions, few topics spark as much controversy, confusion, and sheer hypocrisy as the discourse surrounding abortion. It's a subject that has politicians tap-dancing, activists foaming at the mouth, and internet comment sections devolving into chaos faster than you can say "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

But let's start out at the beginning. The landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade, in which the Court ruled that the Constitution generally protected the right to have an abortion, focused on the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments providing that an individual has a fundamental "right to privacy", thus protecting a woman's right to have an abortion. But it also ruled that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life. Then, in 2022, the Supreme Court reversed its decision on Roe v. Wade essentially sending the issue of abortion's legality back to the states for their own determination.

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but let's face it: navigating the waters of abortion ethics is about as straightforward as untangling a slinky that's been through a blender. On one hand, we have the staunch advocates of "the sanctity of life", who believe that every fertilized egg is destined for greatness and deserves its shot at the American Dream. On the other hand, we have those who champion bodily autonomy, arguing that a woman's right to choose supersedes any potential clump of cells that may or may not have plans to become the next Einstein.

Here in Texas, anticipating (much like Pavlov's dogs, in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the predominantly Republican Texas legislature passed what is known as a "trigger law" that essentially prohibits abortion in any form except to save the mother's life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function. But here's where the fun begins. Enter stage left: the Hypocrites. Yes, those elusive creatures who can bend logic like a contortionist in a funhouse mirror. Let's take a disturbing look at *their* twisted thought processes

Advocacy of Abortion

There's the politician who declares, "I'm pro-life," but who gets caught paying for his mistress's abortion in a back-alley clinic because "the rules are for the little people", right? Or the fervent advocate who claims, "I'm pro-life because I care about babies," but then, at the ballot box, votes against policies that would help struggling families afford healthcare or childcare because, apparently, caring stops at birth.

If we were to invoke logic, then one logical reason for advocating for abortion access is bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution under the 4th Amendment. Regardless of whether or not one believes that a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it does not obligate a mother to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for another, innocent or not.

Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on Earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your bone marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy or arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope that the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be Constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That is the law that abortion opponents want you to overlook.

The use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from the use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. Also, if your belief is that a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, then having the fetus demand the use of a woman's womb against her own will is just as much of an ethical violation. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and that refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position regardless of who agrees or disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means that the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.

Opposition to Abortion

Then you have those who claim that "abortion is a modern evil," but conveniently overlook the fact that people have been terminating pregnancies since... well, since there have been pregnancies to terminate. Or the celebrity activist who tweets out, "I believe in the sanctity of life," while sipping a cocktail made with rare, endangered fruits and wearing a fur coat that looks suspiciously like a family of small woodland creatures. Clearly, some lives are more sanctified than others.

Abortion opponents often cite that since "life begins at conception, abortion is murder." That predominantly Christian belief then extends to them claiming that they are "advocating for the unborn", or that they are "protecting the sanctity of human life". But regardless of their additional arguments, all of their rhetoric comes back to their singular belief that "life begins at conception." But then, they cut funding for social programs that support children once they're born. Because, you know, once you're out of the womb, it's everyone for themselves, kid.

I state that this is a "belief" because there is really no definable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof that life does or does not begin at conception. Despite a large number of scientific citations that this belief is a valid statement, there are an equal number of equally scientific citations to the contrary. As a result, discussions of this nature fall squarely into the realm of philosophical debate, and that is a very poor area from which to make law.

Here's the problem I have with citing predominantly Christian beliefs in an attempt to make law: once you dig beyond the surface, such beliefs appear hypocritical. A simple analogy by a traditional Christian pastor, Dave Barnhart, should suffice to illustrate this hypocrisy.

"'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you. They are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, the addicted, or the chronically poor. They don't resent your condescension, or complain that you are not politically correct. Unlike widows, they don't ask you to question the patriarchy. Unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare. Unlike aliens (immigrants) they don't bring all of that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike. They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships. And when they are born, you can forget about them because they cease to be 'the unborn'. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege; without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim that you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All of the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible, and by Jesus himself? They all get thrown under the bus for 'the unborn'."

And how much of their antagonism is simply for their own amusement? For instance, doomsday prophets claim, "If abortion is legal, people will use it as birth control!" completely ignoring the fact that abortions are often more regulated and restricted than getting a license to operate a lemonade stand. There are some who claim, "I oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest," but then vote against measures to provide comprehensive sex education or support for victims of sexual assault because, apparently, preventing unwanted pregnancies is just too logical. And then, there are the (supposedly) devout Christians who claim, "It's not our place to interfere with God's will," but conveniently forget that God also gave humans free will. But let's not get bogged down by theological paradoxes.

Navigating the landscape of abortion hypocrisy is like trying to juggle flaming swords on a unicycle—difficult, dangerous, and ultimately futile. Perhaps one day we'll find a middle ground where honesty and consistency prevail but until then, let's grab some popcorn and watch the spectacle, because the clown show isn't leaving town anytime soon.