The red cloaks and absurdly long white Dutch bonnets hiding the faces of women at "pro-choice" marches were adapted from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.  Since 1985, the year of the novel's publication, American feminists have been claiming little difference between the novel's dystopian country of Gilead and the United States of America.

Even in the eighties, we could see distinctions separating the realities of living in a country well on the way to dystopia and a country responding to the threat of extinction by forcing women to have babies.  While the parallel of one individual requesting another individual take responsibility for her role in birthing a child has been misconstrued to be an infringement upon individual liberties, the possibility of extinction is still unlikely, despite the apocryphal warnings of climate alarmists and the purveyors of all other state-funded panic initiatives.

Accepting the premise of The Handmaid's Tale as a metaphor for the state's role in rulings related to abortion, one has to assume the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to any laws related to the practice thereof.  In such a fantasy, the state would then be overstepping its bounds and shredding the Constitution in the process.  The court proclaimed the practice legal and by extension a right with Roe v. Wade with no acknowledgment of the right of a child to exist.  The Dobbs decision merely returned the matter to the states, congruent with constitutional intent, however the Democrats' media alliance refuses to accede to or explain the distinction between state's rights and a federal mandate.

To believe that the right to an abortion is inviolable and the procedure unequivocally necessary, one must first consider anyone gestating in the womb to be a clump of cells similar to a cancer, rather than a person shielded by the Constitution.  There is a great deal of mental genuflection required to make the act of aborting a child palatable.  Reproductive health is one step removed from the "right to choose," which is one step removed from getting an abortion, and one step further removed from killing a baby.  It takes more than reason to shake the level of doublethink required to embrace a movement dedicated to infanticide.  Herod, king of Judea, needed only a better publicist and a monopoly on information to go down in history as a great leader for having the male children killed in every household to offset the prospect of usurpation by way of the birth of Jesus Christ.

The special children who were raised in schools where everyone gets a prize learned that whatever one desires, one can get by claiming emotional abuse whenever someone else refuses to simply roll over and surrender to the demand. Social media provided an army of bots to help marginalize anyone principled enough to stand against morally questionable mandates.  Citizen-celebrities, actors, musicians, and other self-centered prima donnas living debauched lifestyles are more than willing to lecture you about the immorality of living moderately and with restraint, while demanding that the federal government get out of American bedrooms.  Yet this is precisely where the federal government was positioned in the matter of Roe v. Wade.  The federal government basically declared in favor of the mother over the child, essentially shifting abortion from a procedure necessary only when the life of the mother was at stake to abortion as just another form of birth control.

When Roe became the law of the land, the Sexual Revolution was starting to burn itself out, leaving diseased bodies and destroyed psyches.  Practitioners of orgiastic excess were beginning to inhabit the halls of academia and government, still clinging to a vision of a paradise bereft of virgins and modesty.  The cool girls were giving up their virtue to the roar of cultural applause as the nuclear family disintegrated in the froth of unchecked desires and self-centered indulgences.  This is one of the foundations for what is now becoming the great cultural push to sexualize children, which has sadly become an easily achievable goal, given the ease of access to pornography and the state-supported devotion to making gender reassignment the latest fad for children and teenagers looking to impress their friends.  The developers of algorithms designed to silence anyone expressing disdain for abortion, while blindly linking children to X-rated websites, likely consider anyone who thinks some constraints on a child's access to the internet a danger to democracy.

Image: Victroria Pickering.