A modest proposal to eliminate abortions

20 Smoky Mountain News

Opinion A modest proposal to eliminate abortions

I have a modest proposal to solve the abortion dilemma, but first we need to understand the background.

All six of the so-called “conservative” Supreme Court justices are current or former members of the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 by right-wing lawyers who desire to eliminate any right not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This not only subjugates women, but also opens the flood gates to take away many of what we tend to consider our rights. The “right” to privacy, to marry whom you chose, access to contraception and school integration could all be eliminated using the same arguments for striking down the Roe vs. Wade precedent.

In the emotionally-charged reaction to the abortion issue, these larger implications of the Court’s majority position are likely to be overlooked. Almost no “right” is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. There is no explicit right to private ownership of guns. The meaning of bearing arms as part of a militia is dependent on the interpretation of the Supreme Court. What the Court gives, the Court can take away.

Also, let’s be clear, the anti-abortion movement never was and is not all about the “sanctity” of human life. It is based on politics and power related to women. The so-called “pro-life” proponents have never shown interest in life post-birth. The United States has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. One of the most life-threatening things a woman can do in the U.S. is taking a pregnancy to term. Likewise, the anti-abortion movement doesn’t care about babies. The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Of 36 developed countries only three have higher infant mortality rates than the U.S. To my knowledge, no anti-abortion leader or movement has championed either maternal health or childcare. Once you are born, there seems to be no “sanctity” of life. The states trying to outdo each other in passing the most restrictive pregnancy laws tend to be the same states who kill adults via capital punishment. If human life is so sacred, what gives the government the right to decide whether someone should be killed?

Mother Nature is the most prolific abortionist that laws cannot stop. About 15% of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Given that many miscarriages occur before the woman realizes she is pregnant, the natural abortion rate is probably closer to 20% — one in five conceptions.

On a positive note, I have a modest proposal that would eliminate the need for abortions performed by people. Since the Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that the government can take charge of a person’s body when pregnancy would be involved, the simple solution is to require every post-puberty male to have a reversable vasectomy.

Medical science has reached the stage where a valve could be inserted into the vas deferens instead of cutting the tube and removing a section as is done with a permanent vasectomy. Thus, the reversable vasectomy would eliminate all teen pregnancies and “accidents” among adults. When a man and his partner wished to have children, he would simply have the valve opened during the time they wished to conceive children. As a hedge, sperm could be stored prior to the reversable vasectomy as an additional precaution.

Having had a vasectomy decades ago, I can attest to the fact that the procedure done by a properly trained surgeon is virtually painless. There is the admonition to abstain from strenuous physical activities for a few days. A vasectomy has no effect on sexual performance. In fact, without the worry of pregnancy, partners might enjoy a more fulfilling relationship.

I am sure the men of the United States (especially those in the anti-abortion movement) would be more than willing to step up for a reversable vasectomy given the peace of mind it would afford. Additionally, it would save women from having deal with the abortion question. (Dr. Norm Hoffman is a semi-retired clinical psychologist living in Waynesville. wncfacts@gmail.com.)

Norman Hoffman Guest Columnist

Pless and Clampitt are too partisan

To the Editor:

Behind the backs of local government in Haywood County, N.C. GOP Reps. Mark Pless and Mike Clampitt tried to push through Bill H998. This bill required “Boards, Charters, City Councils, Counties, County Commissioners, Educations Boards,” etc., to be partisan, i.e., show the candidates party affiliation (D or R) after their name.

This bill apparently pertained only to Haywood County. The true reason, despite all the other claimed reasons, would be to make it easier for the uninformed GOP voters to vote straight GOP. Therefore the GOP voters would not need to research the candidates background, education, position on issues, etc. Currently the largest number of registered voters in Haywood County are unaffiliated.

However, the number of Republican registered voters (55%) is somewhat larger than the number of Democratic voters 45%. I believe that is the reason Madison Cawthorn won the election by 5 points in the last primary in Haywood County. Despite his inexperience, education, lies, his background and his snafus, too many Republicans voted for him because they did not do any research. So, my point is, I believe if all elections in Haywood County were partisan the Democratic candidates have the odds stacked against them because too many Republican voters do not keep current on candidates, nor do they want to be bothered to keep current.

Then Pless and Clampitt both tried to interfere and dictate to local governments about controlling local zoning laws. This was a well-kept secret which surprised local governments. Is this dictatorship or is this working with local government? They should both be ashamed of wanting to control local government. One would think they both should be working on non-partisan issues.

A prime example might be looking at the DMV rules and regulations. If you go to the DMV for anything that requires a notarization, they will charge you $15. They will not let you take the paperwork elsewhere to have it notarized for free. The DMV will not allow a title in the name of two people to use “or” rather than “and” between the two names. Thus, when one of the two people dies, you are required to pay $65 (plus a notary fee) to have a new title issued in the survivor’s name because DMV will not allow “or” to be used between the two names. Both of these DMV regulations need to be changed.

Pless and Clampitt need to pay attention to issues like this and stop trying to dictate laws that pertain to only the GOP. Ron Rookstool Maggie Valley

LETTERS

Will Merrick Garland defend the constitution?

he let them off the hook? Whether the attorney general chooses to restore the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice or not by charging the former president for inciting a deadly attack on the Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power, Merrick Garland’s actions will mark a lifechanging crossroad for our republic.

The morning after the election in November 2020, Donald Trump, instead of conceding an election he lost by 7 million votes, strolled to the mike and did what he does best — he lied. He said, “we won and we won big,” calling the results of the election “a fraud on the American people.” He purposely gave birth to the Big Lie, the cock-and-bull story he and his devoted followers trumpet to this day.

Donald Trump exploited America’s growing divisions over class, race, gender and religion for political purposes. That’s deplorable, but it’s not against the law. Inflaming a mob to attack the Capitol, an act the former president of the United States perpetrated (and which is no longer in dispute) is.

The events surrounding January 6 forced Americans (and citizens around the globe) to recognize and understand how vulnerable democracy really is and how very close we came to losing it.

Men who remembered their oath to protect and defend died that day (or soon after because of it). Men and women who didn’t flinch in the line of duty were injured, some with life-long wounds because of one man who chose to incite a hoard in a futile attempt to overturn an election he knew he lost.

Speaking to the investigative committee, J. Michael Luttig (a retired, conservative federal judge) said Trump’s attempt to overturn the vote brought the nation to the edge of a “revolution within a constitutional crisis and that Trump and his allies are laying the groundwork to try again in 2024,” adding, “they are a clear and present danger to American democracy and I don’t speak those words lightly.”

The Republican Party continues to be an accomplice in Trump’s wrongdoing: denying, defying, obstructing and preventing (by any means available) the January 6 committee from completing its duty. History will record, as Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) (speaking to her Republican colleagues) so eloquently and forcefully phrased, “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

Cheney also spoke of those who “honored their oath of office” January 6, and did their duty. I would remind my fellow veterans (who are choosing to remain silent even as our republic teeters on the brink of collapse) we took that same oath. I took it five times in my Navy career, serving under presidents Eisenhower to Carter. “We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution,” Representative Cheney stated, “and that oath has to mean something.” Yes, I agree, it does.

By his actions (confirmed many times over by his own words), Donald Trump grossly and continuously abused the power of his office. I don’t know what Merrick Garland is going to do but his choices seem clear.

Choosing not to prosecute Trump would signal that presidents are above the law and would be a transparent invitation to future presidents to do whatever they want. To not prosecute ends democ- F