OK

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Anti-choice politicians, their fellow travelers in various male-dominated religious hierarchies, and assorted very bad journalists will mark the occasion with a lot of grandstanding about all the great moral good they would do if only the Supreme Court weren't standing in their way, oh and please send money so they can continue to fight the good fight.

Meanwhile, IVF.

Ever heard any American "pro-lifer" say a word about IVF?

The anti-choice crowd congratulate themselves on having the moral high ground. A new citizen is created at the moment of conception, they say, and they are the only ones who are defending it. Lincoln freeing the slaves was nothing compared to what they do. Or, rather, would do, if that darn Supreme Court were tying their hands.

Meanwhile, IVF.

If you believe that a new person is created at the moment of conception, then the fertility industry murders and tortures for profit.  And the last Republican presidential candidate is a moral monster who is happy that his surplus grandchildren are being kept on ice in an undisclosed location.

There is nothing like Roe protecting the IVF industry, so "pro-life" governors and "pro-life" legislators could act today to shut down the clinics and defend all these little lives.

But they don't. Why?

The only explanation I have ever heard is "we are choosing our battles". What does that, in practice, boil down to? Is it really a better use of time and resources to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for teenage rape victims?  If your answer is "yes" then I think your true motivation has been exposed: you are more interested in punishing women than your are "defending life". Abortion is something sluts do, whereas IVF is something nice middle class suburban couples do.

We should talk more about IVF. I can't think of anything else that does a better job of exposing the rank hypocrisy and political opportunism of the religious right.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.