The SCOTUS news is exposing a madness in Rhode Island.

As Anchor Rising readers know, last week a Providence Journal headline proclaimed, “RI’s record-shattering baby shortage could spell trouble for state’s economy.” This week, Lieutenant Governor Sabina Matos proclaimed her aspiration for the Ocean State to kill more:

I’m confident RI can become a national leader for reproductive rights at a time when these rights are coming under attack. We can not go back.

I can understand the reasoning of the pro-abortion side and the complexity of the moral issues should one acknowledge the life of the baby.  We must also be compassionate about the implications for women who have had abortions as science and law clarify exactly what abortion is.

Still, the rhetoric we’re hearing from Matos and others reveals fanaticism in the face of reality and an unwillingness to grapple with complexity.

Another glimmer of this madness appears in the legislation (H7442 and S2549) that would force taxpayers to fund abortions for state employees and people who receive subsidized healthcare.  That policy shift would be bad enough on its own, but the legislation takes the additional step of disappearing the word “women” as the category of “persons” who can actually become pregnant.

Not long ago, this would have been recognized — indeed, lampooned — as the anti-scientific madness that it is.  Yet in Rhode Island, we’re letting these people control our government and news organs.

Matos’s notion that “we cannot go back” is being proclaimed up and down the political hierarchy, but it’s yet another example of the delusion.  Backwards is exactly where these radicals are taking us, and we’re not going to like the society that they impose on us.  Although, they will naturally leverage their propagandistic power to find others to blame.

 

Featured image by Dawid Zawila on Unsplash

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarioD
Mario
17 days ago

I almost agree, but I think it’s just a good idea in general to make laws as gender-neutral as possible, even if its unimaginable that the law would apply to one of them. I mean, if a man did find himself pregnant, no one is suggesting that these laws wouldn’t apply to him, it would just create a weird ambiguity and unnecessary hurdles. The same would go for any other law.

I make the same argument about excessive reliance on human biology because I think the law should be more universal than that. If we have an alien ship crash land in the desert, I want those people to be able to become citizens and participate in society as easily as anyone else. If an AI achieved personhood, I don’t think they should have to wait until they’ve been active for eighteen years before they get the right to vote.

MarioD
Mario
Reply to  Justin Katz
17 days ago

It’s simple. Laws should be robust, not fragile. The whole point of laws is that they should be stable over time, since you don’t know where things are headed you should write them broadly and try to cover as many possibilities as you can. Writing a law that gives women maternity leave is fine and does what you want it to do most of the time, chaging it over to parental leave is better — it gives people more flexibility without compromising the original goal at all.

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.