 |
| Blumenthal -- Real Clear Politics |
Connecticut, as most legislators in the state’s General Assembly know, is called “the nutmeg state.” The descriptive phrase, when first launched, bordered on an insult rather than a compliment. The state’s nutmeg farmers occasionally mixed wooden nutmegs in their product to deceive purchasers and boost sales. Such sharpers, those nutmeggers!
Eventually, of
course, the plot to cheat purchasers was discovered and the nutmeggers gave up
their sinful ways. Proper business relations were restored, but the phrase
stuck and was later appropriated as a compliment.
Connecticut, “the
nutmeg state,’ may also justly be called “the casino state.” Gambling is an old
way of separating most of the people most of the time from their hard won
assets in return for – the pleasure of losing money.
Casinos have been
perfectly legal in the nutmeg state ever since then Governor Lowell Weicker
made a side deal with certain Indian tribes according to which the tribes were
given a monopoly on state gambling in return for a percentage of slot
collections reverting to state government.
The state also may
justly call itself “the abortion state.” Abortion – for some reason known only
to those who profit monetarily by the practice -- falls in Connecticut under
the rubric of “health care,” even when the abortion is not necessary to save
the life of the prospective mother. Our political language has yet to catch up
with society’s many ethical distortions and present day moral confusion.
Unsurprisingly, postmoderns, who tend to treat abortion as if it were a virtue,
also seem unable to draw proper distinctions between what grandpa naively
called “the sexes.” Metaphysical confusion lies at the root of much of our
unease in the postmodern world.
Connecticut made
abortion legal in the state through a 1990 statute that replicates Roe vs. Wade, lately overturned by the
U.S. Supreme Court. The high court found that its earlier decision in Roe vs. Wade, was wrongly decided and
effectively kicked back to state legislatures decision making power in the
matter of abortions. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization turns
on the question: Who should
decide the issue and not how
should the issue be decided. The high court ruled that the legislatures of the
various states – not the judiciary – should legislatively shape abortion
matters.
The high court
decision left Connecticut’s 1990 statute undisturbed, a certain indication that
the justices did not – and never intended to – abolish abortion in the states.
Connecticut’s
abortion statute is rightly regarded as codifying Roe vs. Wade. “Section 19a-602” reads in part: “Termination
of pregnancy prior to viability. Abortion after viability prohibited;
exception. (a) The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the
viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the patient in consultation with
the patient's physician or, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of
this section, the patient's advanced practice registered nurse, nurse-midwife
or physician assistant.
“(b) No abortion may
be performed upon a patient after viability of the fetus except when necessary
to preserve the life or health of the patient.”
“Never underestimate
the creativity of people who cherish abortion, Andrew
Fowler writes in National
Review. The Connecticut state legislature is considering adopting an amendment,
proposed under the guise of a “right to privacy,” that is predominantly focused
on enshrining “reproductive rights” in the state constitution…
“At first glance,
this Trojan horse measure may appear innocuous, even agreeable to proponents of
conservative, limited government. Yet embedded within the “right to privacy”
umbrella is the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including, but not
limited to, the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue
or end one’s own pregnancy.” The resolution prefaces this passage by stating
that this right shall not be infringed “without the showing of a compelling
state interest.”
Too much salt, as
the master chef says, spoils the broth.
The embedded “right
to privacy” as it relates to abortion, the high court found in overruling Roe v. Wade, was unconstitutional, one
of the reasons the court overthrew Roe v.
Wade. It is also infuriatingly inapposite. The justices who affirmed Roe v. Wade did so by importing into
their decision a “right to privacy” spun out of judicial hot air, emanating
from an “aura” that supposedly surrounded all the rights mentioned in the U.S.
Constitution.
Foul ball, the court
most recently rightly ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson.
President of the
Family Institute of Connecticut Action Peter Wolfgang commented on the
prospective measure: “By making ‘individual privacy’ a pre-eminent right,
subject to only the highest standard of review, other mutually agreed to
activities, done in private, may also be subject to the highest ‘compelling
state interest’ standard. These might include prostitution, euthanasia,
assisted suicide, necrophilia, voluntary slavery, incest, and bigamy. These are
all activities that may be conducted in private between consenting adults.”
Appellate courts,
especially in view of the high court decision reversing Roe v. Wade, may be willing to take such objections more seriously
than Blumenthal, who favors abortion at any stage in a
pregnancy, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Comments