By Edwin Cooney
In her commentary in the New York Times last Tuesday, Michelle Goldberg pointed out that when Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch argues before the Supreme Court that her state has the right to mandate what should go into or come out of women's bodies, that argument will be a direct counter to three lawsuits that she's filed lately against the federal government. These lawsuits have to do with the legitimacy of the government's anti-Covid mandate that vaccinations and masks are required of those working with the public in their employment. In other words, the government has the right to mandate and control what may go in or come out of women's bodies, but what goes in or comes out of men’s bodies is exactly nobody's business!
It's looking increasingly like Roe v. Wade will not live to celebrate its 50th birthday on January 22nd, 2023, but the reason for its demise will have less to do with human or national morality than it has to do with who runs this society.
Throughout most of its nearly 49-year lifetime, feminists have argued that had Roe v Wade affected the personal and physical well-being of men and their prerogatives, it never would have been controversial. This, as Ms. Goldberg sees it — and now as I belatedly see it — is exactly right.
The fact of the matter is that traditionally men have been born to responsibility as hunters and breadwinners, lawgivers, police and sheriffs, poets, priests, teachers and, above all, as rulers. Although these laws and expectations have been altered, in many cases via federal mandate, conservative men, especially those who are traditional states righters, cringe at these modern changes and seek to overturn them at every opportunity.
Of course, both men and women have agonized over when a fetus becomes a human being or whether it is so from the very onset of conception, but men who are conservative insist that they and they alone have the right to govern what they now call their "bodily autonomy.” It raises the ultimate question of whose liberty ultimately matters?
Notice the following historical pattern. Men have always decided who will serve or be served. Men have always decided who will vote or not vote. Men have always decided who could marry and not marry. Men have always decided who would have to go to war or not have to go to war. Men have always decided who would be a slave or be freed and whether Native Americans ought to be moved or massacred. Men, more than women, decide who to rent to, sell to, trade with, and even who can pray in churches, synagogues, and mosques.
By insisting that the individual has the sole right to determine what is within one’s body — a baby or a disease — and what to do about it, the government ought to have nothing to do with it. That at least would be consistent. However, when it comes to women and racial and ethnic minorities, government is apparently obligated to set the moral tone because women and racial minorities aren’t “capable” of setting the proper tone or standard! If men are the only ones with the right to bodily autonomy, then equal opportunity in the United States of America has come to a sorry pass!
The real issue of this controversy over "bodily autonomy" can be found in the preamble of our Constitution. According to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, one of the legitimate reasons for creating the Constitution of the United States was and remains "...the general welfare" of the country. I've never been taught that our liberty is so broad that we have the inalienable right to deliberately make family members, our neighbors, our customers, and our fellow citizens sick. The general welfare must be our ongoing priority!
Well, it seems that the general welfare be damned! You and I had better hope not — after all, your personal liberty is ultimately at stake — as is mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment