Brooks vs. Roe

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?hp

While I obviously disagree with Brooks over what should be done with Roe in 2005, I think he has a point-- I've made the same argument myself -- that Roe was indeed undemocratic and increased cynicism among social conservatives. My counter would be that Brown vs. BOE and Abington v Schempp had the same or similar effect as he describes, but we certainly don't villianize Brown today, and sane conservatives don't villify Abington. Pure, direct democracy is not an unadulterated social good. One would think that point would not be lost nor forgotten by a Jew who knew his history as one assumes Brooks does.

However, pregnant women who also happen to be poor, remain fair game for the bulk of American conservatives. Pregnant women of means had the option of abortion long before Roe, it just wasn't called abortion, the woman had a D&C which "just happened" to result in an abortion. A process Dan Qualye was all too familiar with for his own wife's tastes. Wingnut Senator Santorum's wife was also about to make a similar decision albeit under far more dire and different circumstances.

Hypocrisy and callousness marches on.