There’s only so much you can write about the hypocrisy of conservatives who want government to stay out of our lives unless it’s to impose restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion, or to prevent gays from getting married, so let’s give that up for now.
Instead, let’s focus on how the rights of the unborn seem to outweigh those of the born. Once a nine-month-old “person” has been brought into this world, he or she, if unfortunate enough to have been born poor, is likely to avail him- or herself of government programs. Neo-natal programs, food stamps, child-care allowances—unfortunately, they all represent that repugnant redistribution of wealth conservatives love to rail about.
Now, if conservatives really cared that much about the sanctity of life, they would prioritize and expand these programs, and do so with smiles on their faces, because they ease the painful decision so many women must confront as they determine whether they will carry their child to term. If a woman of little means knew that the bundle of joy she was carrying was less likely to become a crippling financial burden in a world where most of the chips were already stacked against her, she might be more likely to “choose life,” as they love to say on the license plates.
In a world where the State had a vested interest in ensuring that a child has the best of care at the beginning of its life (as it does in, say, Scandinavia), Roe v. Wade would diminish in significance, because more women would exercise their freedom of choice to give birth.
But that makes too much sense. Besides, “more government programs for the poor” is⎯let’s face it⎯a real loser when it comes to conservative fundraising.