‘LGBTQ’ Activists Fear Abortion Rights Reversal


Their apprehensions range from the infringement of “rights of pregnant men” to the possible implications for Obergefell.

LGBTQers are up in arms about the leaked Dobbs verdict draft. To them, the willingness of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — what they term “longstanding precedent” — somehow endangers them.

NBC News comes at it from a new woke angle with an interview of a “transgender” man (read: woman) who doesn’t want the overturning of Roe to interfere with her ability to obtain an abortion. The fallacious thinking that has been promoted by the Left is that overturning Roe means abortion will become illegal. No. If Roe is overturned, abortion “rights” will be returned to the states. The interviewee has nothing to worry about since she resides in New York City. The likelihood of abortion being illegal there is very slim considering how blue the state of New York is.

Opinions like this are easily dismissed. But according to the same NBC article, “Advocates say that LGBTQ people are already disproportionately affected by restrictions on abortion due to higher rates of medical discrimination and poverty.” Let’s break this little nugget down. Those “higher rates of medical discrimination” are self-inflicted wounds, especially in the case of “transgenderism.” Gender dysphoric individuals set out on paths to get hormone/puberty blockers, testosterone treatments, and “gender-affirming surgeries,” all of which are a mess of their own making and enabled by feckless doctors and psychologists who refuse to actually treat their mental illness in a way that actually helps.

The correlation between poverty and identity is tenuous. People who identify as LBGTQ+ come from all walks of life, rich and poor. This false equivalency between poverty and medical discrimination is an attempt to reinforce the tired talking point about the inaccessibility of abortion to the poor.

The most “rational” (for lack of a better term) of the activists’ fears regarding Roe and Casey potentially being overturned has to do with Lawrence v. Texas, which granted same-sex consensual coupling, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted same-sex marriage. Both precedents were set relatively recently (Lawrence in 2003 and Obergefell in 2015); neither is as longstanding as Roe. Activists have good reason to be afraid, especially since Obergefell — which appropriated a religious institution and inferred a “right” that wasn’t explicitly endowed in the Constitution — was made on tenuous grounds.

Some will even take it a step further to draw racism into the conversation. Congressman Eric Swalwell raved: “The Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion. They want to ban interracial marriage.” Joy Behar, one of the hosts of “The View,” threw out this nonsense: “My worry is that this is just the beginning. Next they’ll go after gay marriage, and maybe Brown vs. Board of Education. They already eroded our voting rights a little bit. So I see fascism down the line here.” And finally, President Joe Biden managed to get out this non sequitur: “What happens if … a state changes the law saying that … children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children? … What are the next things that are going to be attacked?”

Frankly, this demonic backlash stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are. In the conservative view — and the Founding Fathers’ view — God-given rights are things the government can’t take away. For some liberals and all leftists, rights are something only the government can give you. Arguing that a woman has a “right” to kill her unborn baby is an example of the Left’s perspective — a right endowed on women by the federal government. People deciding on a state-by-state basis the issue of abortion (which is what would happen should Roe be overturned) is a perfect understanding of the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



4 views0 comments