BRIDGING THE ABORTION DIVIDE
A Modest Proposal for the Abortion Divide to Unite the USA
How to temper the repercussions of female rage
Previously, I established that states enacting abortion bans must also be prepared to introduce mandatory vasectomies. The latter provides some balance to the existing bans.
I now continue with more factors legislators must urgently consider — if they are to salvage unity and promote an equitable pro-life regime in those states.
Quelling echoes of revolutionary France
A consequential change such as state-mandated vasectomies will be uncomfortable. But contra-liberal (aka conservative) reaction should be guided by conservatism’s ideological father, Edmund Burke, who warned 18th-century England of France’s radical revolt:
“A state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation.”
That suggests the dire stakes. Turning to French history, I doubt we can ever know how many heads were liberated (from their torsos) by Madame la Guillotine. Let us pray we never know how many — dare I say it? — male genitals might meet a surgical fate by scissors or kitchen knives: that is, in the hands of women decrying abortion bans.
So, I suggest there will be considerably more discomfort — if female outrage should ever be radicalized. For Gen X and male baby boomers, the legend of Lorena Bobbitt still looms large.
Thus, this program of state-enforced vasectomies, combined with vasectomy identification cards (VASTIDs) issued as proof of the procedure, is designed to preempt potential violence. It will help balance the scales of gender rights in abortion-banning states such as Florida.
There are, however, certain racial sensitivities to consider.
Let’s acknowledge that the ghost of medical experiments on dark-skinned races still floats above us. And we saw that was a factor in promoting pandemic vaccines in Black communities. Therefore, I propose that the first participants in the VASTID program should be Caucasian volunteers. This would temper any suspicions from the left of the revival of the horrors of forced sterilization for racist ends.
Ironically, the pandemic also provided us a precedent. If a Black nurse in New York could be first to volunteer to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, then a vanguard of white males can be role models for universal vasectomies. That may even win them official commendations.
Such a masculine exercise of civic duty would also advance public support in the Bible Belt for this new twist to pro-life state regimes.
A fox guarding the hen house — the conservative media’s role
But what of the American media? Will the contra-liberal press and pundits of the polar right respond favorably? The question answers itself: Why wouldn’t they endorse this fetal safety measure — given their tacit approvals of the nation’s march to an anti-abortion era?
No doubt, those male cable anchors on networks with rightward tilts will be willing to be first in line for VASTIDs. Perhaps they might even broadcast their own surgical procedures — modestly, of course — as a boost for their network ratings.
For some, their marital status might dismiss them temporarily from the procedure — but only if they had consent from their spouses: subject to quarterly renewals at spousal discretion.
Accordingly, just as their media employers mandated COVID measures as a protection for the workplace, those same organizations should assist this demonstration of gender equity by requiring all male employees to display a current VASTID — upon demand when entering corporate locations.
But the media should not be the only ally in support of this legislation: There is also the American ministry.
Having faith in vasectomy IDs (VASTIDs)
To balance pro-life imperatives with female protections, we need vigorous backing from America’s pastors. The vasectomy protocols will allow them to signal their support — both for the defense of what they see as human life, as well as female bodily security. And they should do so, not by mere statements alone, but by their own personal compliance with the mandate.
We should expect nothing less. It would be unimaginable that moral leaders would fail to practice what they preach to young girls and fertile women regarding protecting the unborn. That would be rank hypocrisy.
Ergo, I anticipate the following solid flank of cleric forces to support this gender equity campaign:
1) Catholic bishops
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could issue an immediate statement professing its clergy will volunteer for VASTID registration — notwithstanding such action should be moot because of priestly vows of celibacy.
Sadly, the past disclosures of priest pedophiles and similar indiscretions would require this acquiescence to restore public trust. This would be in the best interest of the Catholic Church to forestall political backlash for its leading role supporting abortion bans. (I write as someone who once was raised as Catholic.)
And with six Catholics presently serving on the nation’s highest court, it would also serve to buttress the sinking legitimacy of that judicial body. However, if — to our surprise — the Catholic Church should litigate the VASTID protocols, the Catholics on the Court — including Clarence Thomas — should recuse themselves, if the litigation were to rise to their purview.
2) Southern Baptist Convention
Other Christian denominations, likewise, must do their part to balance the scales of reproductive justice.
The Southern Baptist Convention, as the nation’s largest Protestant branch, should become conservatism’s vanguard in promoting the VASTID campaign. Their public moral sentiments and published sexual scandals would demand it — that is, unless those Baptist leaders no longer view American males as naturally lustful, which apparently was why their ranks ignored years of past carnal violations.
3) The Church showing support for women
Nevertheless, this cleric mobilization should be accomplished within months since American moral leaders will wish to signal solidarity with women — if that can be accomplished without violating protections for embryonic life.
I fear failure of the clergy to do so will bind them, awkwardly, in an orgy of political kinship with the Taliban and other Islamist regimes. It may be my peculiar quirk, but I find incongruous the notion of Christian Taliban, regardless whether clothed in vestments or Neiman Marcus suits.
Of course, red-state legislators must have a legal basis — such as a SCOTUS justice opinion — for enacting forced vasectomies affecting one-half of the population. So, they must be as thoughtful of male bodily autonomy as they were of women when they enacted abortion bans.
That legal precedent will be addressed in the next post. The previous installment (Part 4) can be accessed here.
Thanks for your attention, and I welcome your response. To follow future posts, you can press the button to the right. — Geronimo Redstone
