PART ONE: PHONIES AND HYPOCRITES

Show me a “pro-choice” demonstrator, and 95 (or more) out of 100, I am looking at someone who:

– Opposes allowing parents the free choice to utilize their government school vouchers for their unaborted children to attend a yeshiva, a Christian school, or even a private secular school.


– Opposes permitting law-abiding, mentally healthy, non-Islamist adults the free choice to buy a gun lawfully and to carry it outside his home for whatever non-sinister reason motivating him.

– Opposes permitting people exercising their free choice to not wear a mask, even in a setting where no one else is remotely nearby. Thus he loses access to full air for breathing, compels hours of ‘ one’s own discharged and dirty air, and diminishes live social intercourse, relegating the public to use Facebook, Twitter, and (G-d help us) TikTok to engage.

– Opposes allowing parents their free choice to have their school-age children learn in the socially beneficial environment of a classroom with other human beings rather than in an isolated and insular setting of an in-home computer and Zoom app.

– Opposes allowing free choice to others who want to use shopping bags made of certain man-made components but not paper bags.

– Wants to exercise his free choice to use a plastic straw when drinking a milkshake at an ice cream parlor.

– Demands, all the way to the Supreme Court, that teachers must waive their free choice to refuse paying union dues from their salaries to unions whose social, political, or religious views diametrically oppose theirs.

– Refuses to allow teachers to use the pronouns “he/him/his” for students contemporaneously considering and undergoing gender-mutilating surgery; the same regarding girls en route to leaving behind “her/hers.” (DISCLOSURE: This writer goes by me/myself/I.)

This writer can go on. And on. It is my choice not to do so.

So don’t give us the baloney about “free choice.” And, like other Democrat-progressive-woke “voting reforms” by which people have endless time to vote, the fetus soon will have the right to vote on her right to sign on for life or death. That will give us a tied score. And if the womb is holding twins or triplets, we are talking landslide for life.

PART TWO: MORONS, IDIOTS, AND OTHER IVY LEAGUERS

They think they are so much smarter than the guy on the assembly line who prints and binds their textbooks, builds their dormitory facilities, and soon will be taxed to offset their school loans.

Yet they cannot grasp the simplicity of the most salient take-aways from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

Women and men who are pregnant may continue coming in every year for their annual check-up and abortion because half the Nifty Fifty states will restrict abortions.And half will allow abortions up to the moment that the mother’s cervix hits 10 and a gray monstrosity looking like a character out of The Simpsons emerges, crying. It is at this very moment that the father’s and mother’s families start arguing as to which deceased relative the kid looks like. It usually is an uncle or aunt, three times removed, who lived in Sicily, Dublin, or a part of Poland that eventually became Russia. If twins, Dublin wins; otherwise Cork.

If Arizona restricts abortions too rigidly, it is a relatively short drive over to California, which will welcome them with wine from the Sonoma Valley, a visit to Disneyland, and a live tour of the Homeless District which is pretty much everywhere.

Or they can go to San Francisco, hunt for Tony Bennett’s heart, see Chinatown, walk down Lombard Street, which is as crooked as the people governing California, and see a real world-class Homeless District where they even might obtain a free needle for injecting heroin.

PART THREE: STOP THE NONSENSE ALREADY

Suddenly, everyone quotes “Stare Decisis, Stare Decisis” as though he is fluent in Italian. It is time to ix-nay the upidity-snay. The United States Supreme Court has overruled prior precedent more than 230 times — and many of the overruled cases were well reasoned, supported by serious law. By contrast, Roe v. Wade was so poorly constructed, so bereft of case law to sustain it that it waited patiently for Donald Trump to reach the White House. It begged to be overruled.

It is that imple-say."