Few decisions could inspire so much anger and sadness in one group of Americans—and so much joy and relief in another—than last week’s decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Depending on where you sit, the Court just rolled back women’s rights by 50 years, or corrected an egregious instance of judicial overreach.
It is strange that we see photos of pandemics, genocides, and wars but never abortions, which were, until recently, one of our most celebrated American rights. No opinion of abortion is complete without seeing what an abortion is, in my opinion.
How does this have no comments? Fabulous podcast. I thought highlights were the description of how you can see this ruling as either distribution of power (from federal to state) or a grab of power (from individual to state).
It would have benefit from expressly mentioning one thing in the dissenting opinion: that some aspects of life should NOT be at the mercy of the majority's opinion.
Fascinating to hear that these two women would ultimately agree on as moderate abortion policy, but that their sympathies (for unborn babies or women) ultimately lie in different places.
Grateful for this content.
I haven’t even played the podcast yet and just wanted to thank Bari Weiss for a truly journalistic intro. I think I know what side of the debate she falls- and being a political conservative Christian you can guess which side I fall- yet she just laid out some facts. Refreshing. Now on to the debate…
Even the most generous pro-abortion phrasing never manages to suggest that Roe wasn't judicial activism. It was just "good" judicial activism.
That abortionists are so hysterical about doing without it is telling.
Bari, I've been thinking about how things might have played out the last 50 tears if Roe had been correctly decided. If SOCUS had rolled that there is no constitutional right to abortion, I presume each state would have enacted their own laws governing this issue. We would already be where we are going, but without all the social media rancor. Would love to see a column on this by you and/or a legal historian.
Love what you are doing!
Thank-you for the calm and informative debate. Unfortunately I don't believe in the next few years the debate will be as calm or informative. The hysteria on both sides is very disheartening.
Thank you. I will not look at these photos again. However, you are right. We suppress photos like these because we do not want to know the truth.
Would like to have heard more about the difference between a healthy Libertarian bent toward individual choice as relates to how fed or state taxes are govt theft, or freedom of speech online being eroded, verses an unhealthy Libertarian bent like focusing only on an individual choice of the mother to be a parent or not superseding the very basic constitutional right of the human life inside her to not be deprived of their life. There are many pro- life Libertarians and it seems to me to be a more consistent approach. The bottom line being that the right of a human being not to be killed in the womb is higher on the moral hierarchy of rights than the right of a person to not be inconvenienced for 9 months.
Loved this episode. Once thing that wasn’t talked about (and is often never mentioned in the discussion with parents after a poor prenatal diagnosis) is neonatal hospice. It was said by one of the speakers that either the baby dies a horrible death at 20 weeks or they do at 40 weeks. But neonatal hospice can make the death at birth/early life less traumatic and painful. Neonatal hospice is exactly what it sounds like - the same hospice that adults who are dying use to make their life comfortable but applied to a newborn. I had a friend who carried her child to term with a diagnosis that was terminal. But most times, when a couple is told of this sort of diagnosis at an appointment, they aren’t told this is an option. I have often wondered how many people would have continued their pregnancy (especially in a wanted child) had they known this was an option.