Pick a side. In today’s world, you cannot survive in politics, or in life it seems, without picking a side. And winning is all that matters.
Remember when your mom and dad used to tell you, as a kid, that “it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game?” Today the message seems more likely to be “do whatever it takes to ensure you win, and your opponent loses.” In other words, the end always justifies the means.
Pick an issue, then choose sides. Americans are constantly forcing each other to “pick a side” (it often comes down to a political side).
Once individuals do “pick a side,” they are expected to agree with every aspect of their side, or their party. If they fail to agree with EVERY issue, they are seen as disloyal, or worse, and may be discarded as unworthy for their team.
Ex-Congressperson Liz Cheney, one of the most “conservative” members of the Republican Congressional caucus, was targeted and basically dismissed by her own party for standing up for her constitutional beliefs. A single issue, not political but ethical, was her undoing. I highly recommend that everyone read her book, which came out last week.
Because of these expectations for Americans to be as partisan as possible, politicians and political candidates tend to shape their platforms, if they even have platforms anymore, toward the most extreme side of each issue, creating gridlock and confrontation in Washington and at the state level. It leaves the more centrist voter searching for leaders.
Today’s issue — Abortion rights, an issue that requires everyone to pick a side. If you lean right your team has decided that the will of 70 percent of American voters does not matter, and that all abortions, no matter the physical or emotional effect on the health of the mother and/or baby, are wrong and should be outlawed.
If you lean left, your team thinks that abortion should be available for any situation, even as a form of birth control, at any time in a pregnancy. That doesn’t seem right either.
In fact, does anyone understand why abortion is a political issue, strictly divided along party lines? Shouldn’t religion, ethics, and humanity have more influence?
Both teams want to win, so a bunch of 75-year-old white men go to court to fight for the “rights” of either babies or mothers. But why can’t there be some compromise? Why can’t there be some flexibility? Why can’t there be some logic, some common sense? Because today, for one old white guy to win, another old white guy must lose, so we go extreme on both sides.
What does this win-at-all-costs mentality get us? It gets us Kate Cox.
In Texas, a young woman named Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two, sadly learned that the fetus she now carries has a rare genetic condition, which is almost always fatal. Her medical team has determined that continuing the pregnancy could put her life at risk. Cox, who seeks to have a third child, might also lose her ability to have more children if forced to carry this pregnancy to term.
While Texas has changed state law to outlaw almost all abortions after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade last year, a Texas judge granted Cox’s request last week to allow an abortion under the specific conditions that exist in the case.
But in the spirit of a “win at any cost” mentality, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has survived an impeachment in his own state, could not abide by the judge’s decision. Despite the threat to Cox, and the almost certainty that her child will be stillborn or will die a painful death shortly after birth, Paxton appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.
On Friday, the Supreme Court blocked the lower court’s ruling, and Paxton added threats of prosecution for doctors who might be inclined to help Cox’s plight in Texas. Since this is a time-sensitive issue, Cox was left with few options.
She can continue her high-risk pregnancy and hope she will recover after delivering her lifeless baby, or travel to another state to seek out another doctor. But at least Paxton got his win. She has decided to leave the state; while that is a hardship for her emotionally and financially, it addresses her medical need. Not all patients have that option available to them.
So, while Paxton protects the “rights” of a non-viable fetus, who is unlikely to survive birth, he jeopardizes Cox’s health and her ability to have another healthy child in the future. So, she seeks other options. It seems extreme – Paxton seems to have the attitude that if we don’t make you lose, we can’t really feel like we win.
But did we really win with what’s being done to Kate Cox? Or, to her unborn child? It just doesn’t feel like a win.
Curt MacRae is a resident of Coldwater, MI.
All columns are tweeted (@curtmacrae) — comments to rantsbymac@gmail.com
Comments