My Reaction to the Reactions

 Almost two months after the leak of the draft of Alito’s majority opinion, the Dobbs decision was finally released on Friday, overturning Roe v. Wade.  I have not yet read the entire opinion, although the hefty opinion and the dissents sit at the edge of my desk in my “to be read” pile.

The final decision has triggered the expected response in the usual places.   Nancy Pelosi was so angered that she was almost incoherent and her earring fell off at the end of her statement.  Barack Obama, with no small irony, commented “[the decision] relegated the most intensely  personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues.”  *cough**cough*  The ever eloquent and inspirational Kamala Harris reacted by stating “we are guided by what we see that can be, unburdened by what has been.”  Ms. Harris apparently has been unburdened by any serious Constitutional scholarship.  The Vatican did release a statement, but also took the opportunity to say that being “pro-life means defending life against the threat of firearms.”  The Woke Pope himself, who tweets daily about climate change and immigration, has been pretty quiet about an issue that has been central to Catholic beliefs for a long, long time.  And from the radical Left, the reaction has been an entirely predictable temper tantrum.  Lost in all this is that a Missourian just needs to fill up the car and drive across the  border to Illinois where she will be welcomed into the Abortion Mecca of the Midwest with open arms by our ever health focused governor J.B. Pritzker (Body Mass Index approaching infinity), a drive that would be less expensive had Joe Biden not won the presidency.    And Woke corporations like JP Morgan Chase are tripping over themselves to underwrite abortion transportation costs in the name of women’s rights  (“If you could be back at your desk taking calls by lunchtime, that would be great, Nancy.   We’re here for you.”).   None of that messy, inconvenient maternity leave and post-birth time on the phone coordinating with nannies, doctor’s appointments,  parent-teacher conferences and all that for the progressive, beneficent Mr. Dimon.  We have shareholders to please.  The cost/benefit is pretty clear.  A couple thousand bucks of travel expenses is a real bargain to limit the lost productivity that children cause.

For me, the most curious reactions came on LinkedIn, and as a result, I have begun the practice of “de-networking,” that is, trimming contacts from LinkedIn that use the platform as a place to make political statements.   In my view, LinkedIn is a platform to make and maintain professional connections and to view someone’s background, and is a job search engine.  LinkedIn is usually the first stop for most headhunters and employers.

I have begun to actually trim contacts.  It began with people putting pronouns in their bios.  I figured that if I don’t know you well enough to know what sex you are,  it is highly unlikely that I will know you well enough to do any business with.   Pronouns in the bio earn an automatic deletion from my contact list.

Similarly, I deleted a number of contacts after the 2020 election that posted gushing comments about Kamala Harris breaking the glass ceiling.  Harris, who didn’t earn a single delegate in the Democratic primaries, has broken nothing but the nation’s record for vacuous speeches and inappropriate cackling.  Mostly, I deleted these contacts because I apply The Iron Law of Reciprocity.  Not a single person dared post anything positive when Donald Trump won in 2016 on LinkedIn.   Likewise, not a single person had so far shown the courage to applaud Supreme Court's reasoning and adherence to the Constitution.  They wouldn't dare. They would be a social pariah if they did, and would be treated as if they had contracted professional leprosy.  But those that support Roe and express anger at Clarence Thomas are free to paste their views all over LinkedIn.   Most astonishingly, many of the supporters of Roe demonstrate in public their profound ignorance of what the Dobbs ruling actually says, which also says something about how one would analyze professional matters.

But since much of corporate America has incorporated progressive positions in their cultures, it is now permissible to publicly espouse them on public platforms.   For conservatives or libertarians, it is verboten to do so.  They must stay in the closet on political matters—you know, like gays used to have to.  I thought we were past that. I guess not.  We merely switched positions.

So I have been busy trimming contacts like I trim the bushes in the spring.  I refer to it as de-networking. One person actually boasted that he had lost 20 contacts due to his commentary on Dobbs that he posted on LinkedIn.  Delete.  Make that 21.   

But I did do something quite astonishing as a consequence of all this.  I sent a modest campaign contribution to a NY Democrat--  Maud Maron, running for the 10^th District in NY.  Yes, you read that correctly- a NY Democrat. Before you write me off as having completely lost all of my marbles, I reprint her response to Dobbs in its entirety here:

I fully support the legal right of a woman to choose whether to have a child or an abortion, and believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

The Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade should not be a cause for panic—especially in New York State where access to abortion is protected by State Law.  The issue now lies with our democratic process; and laws will differ in different states.  We should strive to resolve our differences on this deeply emotional question through reason, not rage.

The federal government should support funding for abortion where it is legal in the states.  Congress should also make sure that states do not interfere with interstate travel to obtain legal abortions.

This is an opportunity for Americans to solve a difficult problem together through debate and compromise.  Let’s take it.

I was so thoroughly impressed by her measured and thoughtful response that I was compelled to send her a contribution and mention her on social media.   While many on the left were firing up flamethrowers and too many on the right were smugly gloating, Ms. Maron’s response was the most eloquent that I have seen expressed so far.  What really caught my attention was what Ms. Maron did NOT do.  She did not assail the Court or its decision.  Her response suggests that she is respectful of the Constitution and the separation of powers.  She advocated a democratic process and debate and compromise.  Plagiarizing a slogan from the Clinton campaign—I’m with her. 

I undoubtedly have some policy differences with Ms. Maud.  And that's OK.  She's a Democrat.  I've generally hewed more closely to Republican positions.  But her enlightened and reasoned response to Dobbs demonstrated the limits of partisanship.  Ironically, out of a highly divisive issue about which people occupy hardened positions, I find myself fully behind a Democrat.  Go figure.  I will be following her closely, and I encourage my readers to support her candidacy.  We need more like her from both parties in Congress.