The inconsistently irrelevant columnist for the Washington Post, George Will, is furious, just furious because students and faculty members who are in favor of the rights of women to control their own bodies are rather pushy in the debate. He is upset that the free speech rights of some of the opponents of choice are being denied their full rights to speak and protest.
The target of Mr. Will’s wrath is the student government association at Johns Hopkins which is fighting against anti-abortion rights groups that want to thrust their views and their images on the campus community, a community that may not want to hear those views and see those images. But he also rants against what he thinks are pro-abortion rights advocates actions to deny opponents equality of speech.
We don’t know if Mr. Will’s examples are valid, he is not exactly the paragon of objectivity here. But we do know that if one is looking for extremism in this arena, it is those who are on Mr. Will’s side who are killing those with whom they disagree. Maybe Mr. Will doesn’t consider that the kind of extremism that should be denounced, although since killing a pro-abortion rights individual does rob them of their right to free speech, maybe he would object for that reason.
Anyway, Mr. Will inadvertently presents the argument that is in favor of abortion rights and against his position. He presents this dialogue in a legislative hearing in
involving rights advocate Alisa Snow.
“If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”
Mr. Will’s position is of course that he, George Will, knowing nothing about the individuals, the situation or having any medical expertise should make that decision in every case, and do so through the intrusive arm of government. And this is what passes as Conservatism these days.