May 13, 2013
David G. Savage:
Church-state, literally? Supreme Court weighing public school graduation in a church
May 10, 2013
Rabbi Berel Wein: Be all that you should be
May 8, 2013
Peter Ford: Why China is welcoming both Israel's Netanyahu and Palestinians' Abbas
Obama administration quietly backs out of appeal over new contraceptive mandate
At Kerry-Putin meeting, US-Russia relations thaw --- a tad
The Kosher Gourmet by Leela Cyd Ross :
Almost too pretty to eat, this colorful salad with Sicilian inspiration will tickle the taste buds and delight your visual sensibility
May 6, 2013
May 3, 2013
Kids, kittens the Same?
With employee perks at struggling Internet pioneer Yahoo! it's hard to tell
Artificial kidney offers hope to patients tethered to a dialysis machine
April 29, 2013
Poland's new Jewish museum celebrates life, doesn't revisit Holocaust
Terrorism in America: Is US missing a chance to learn from failed plots?
Boston Bomber's 'Svengali' Revealed
Tiny satellites + cellphones = cheaper 'eyes in the sky' for NASA
April 26, 2013
Clifford D. May:
Defense in the Age of Jihadist Terrorism
Sharon Palmer, R.D.:
How to feel your best -- with plenty of energy, a healthy weight and optimal mental and physical function -- without driving yourself batty
April 24, 2013
Admit it: No one has any idea what's going on
April 22, 2013
US man departing country arrested on terror charges
An unorthodox but growing treatment in a 9-year-old's battle against cancer
April 19, 2013
Caroline B. Glick:
Why Obama's visit to Israel had no impact on public opinion or government policy
Gold collapse: The start of something big?
Livable super-Earths? Two candidates among Kepler's latest finds
April 17, 2013
Too much of a good thing? 'Palestinians' realize downside of foreign aid boom
BAD NEWS: EVERYONE IS RIGHT!
April 15, 2013
Egyptian Christians respond with harsh words to attack -- rocks, Molotov cocktails, and gunfire -- against main cathedral
Marcy Darnovsky and Karuna Jaggar:
High Court to decide if you should own your DNA
US bracing for more Russian blowback after taking action against 18 more human rights violators
April 12, 2013
New cybersecurity bill: Privacy threat or crucial band-aid?
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom:
The Kosher Gourmet by Susan Russo:
Jackie Robinson's Friend, Hank Greenberg; CNN's Jake Tapper; Texas County in the News is named for 19thC. Jewish soldier and Congressman
FRUITY QUINOA STUFFED PEPPERS: A flavorful, colorful and edible vessel of delicately fluffy, mildly nutty filling combined with chewy apricots, tangy cherries, and crunchy pistachios
April 10, 2013
North Korean missiles: Could US shoot them down?
Warning: Don't waste your capital being fooled by profit prophets
Donald Hensrud, M.D.:
Mayo Clinic Medical Edge: Take vitamin supplements with caution --- even approved, they may actually do damage
74 DNA discoveries move cure closer for three cancers
April 8, 2013
Jonathan Tobin: What Part of No Preconditions Do American Jews Not Get?
Is Putin finally trading his own party for a new power base?
Jewish World Review
March 23, 2006
/ 23 Adar, 5766
Men seeking same imaginary rights as women
Pro-life activists recently struck an ominous blow against the unlimited right to abortion in the United States.
No, I'm not speaking of the measure enacted by South Dakota lawmakers that flagrantly defies the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and all but guarantees a high court showdown. More on this in a moment.
I'm speaking of the lawsuit filed in Michigan by the National Center for Men. The center styles itself as "the only organization in the world that has focused on all men's issues."
Among those issues: circumcision, which, according to the group's Web site, "represents an actual and symbolic assault on male sexuality"; life expectancy, which is about six years shorter for American men than it is for American women; and homelessness, which the group claims afflicts 10 times as many men as women.
You might get the impression that the National Center for Men is less about crusading for illusory men's rights than it is about provoking people into thinking about issues in different ways. You might be right.
The center has put a trademark imprint on its suit, calling it Roe vs. Wade for Men. It filed the suit on behalf of Matt Dubay, who claims the state of Michigan has violated his reproductive rights. He asserts a woman that he dated told him a medical condition made her incapable of becoming pregnant. She allegedly took the additional precaution during their courtship of using an oral contraceptive.
A few months after they broke up, the woman delivered a baby girl. A Michigan court ordered Dubay to begin paying $475 in monthly child support. Dubay and the National Center for Men object, claiming the court order violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.
Here's how the center defines the issue:
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.
"We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex."
Nonsense, you say? Perhaps so. An invitation to male irresponsibility? Absolutely. But the amazing thing is that it took 33 years for someone to postulate imaginary male rights to complement an imaginary female right to abortion on demand at anytime for any reason. That's one absolutist extreme in the abortion debate. The South Dakota Legislature offered up the other extreme when it criminalized all abortion procedures that aren't necessary to save the life of the mother.
A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows the narrow bases of support for these two extremes. Only 19 percent of respondents said abortion should be legal in all cases, while 16 percent said it should be illegal in all cases.
Thirty-two percent said it should be legal in most cases, while 27 percent said it should be illegal in most cases.
You can parse those numbers in several manners, but the most meaningful interpretation is this: A strong majority of Americans, 59 percent, is pro-choice with limitations. Or put another way, a strong majority of Americans is pro-life with exceptions.
That's far less attention-grabbing news than the assertion of a male right to reproductive choice or the accusation that a Supreme Court led by John Roberts will somehow make abortion illegal. In the unlikely event the court did overturn Roe vs. Wade and strike down one absolutist precedent, it could not replace it with another absolutist precedent.
What the court would do in that unlikely circumstance is restore a legislative process it interrupted in 1973, a process that can't ignore the sentiments of a firm majority of the American people.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Gurwitz, a columnist for the San Antonio Express-News, is a co-founder and twice served as Director General of the Future Leaders of the Alliance program at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. In 1986 he was placed on the Foreign Service Register of the U.S. State Department.Comment by clicking here.
Jonathan Gurwitz Archives
© 2005, Jonathan Gurwitz
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
Ask Doctor K