In no particular order: My adventures of commenting on the Dobbs case

I do not consider myself to be an anti-abortion activist. I am just a highly biased and opinionated guy who speaks his mind, and who views the current animated national discussion on the abortion issues in the greater context of an ill trend that threatens the ruination of society.  To me, the abortion issue is part and parcel of the chaotic Kulturkampf  that also entails issues such as the so-called “cancel culture,” critical race theory,  synthetic sexual identities (SSI), and gun violence; history has shown us that such societal upheavals rarely end well for the Jewish community.

To be sure, there are instances where the abortive termination of a woman’s pregnancy is warranted, most notably, cases of bona fide medical necessity.  Ideally, the decision of whether to abort should be a matter between the woman and her physician.  But the world is not ideal, and, quite frankly, the cynical views regarding the medical profession in general, which I have held from pre-adolescence (never mind that my mother’s brother was a physician, and that I am married to a physician), have been more than vindicated with time.  Abortion practitioners tend to be among the medical profession’s most depraved members.  Putting it bluntly, the abortionist sector of the medical profession, having a vested interest in the continuation of the practice, cannot be depended upon to objectively inform a woman of the pros and cons involved.

Anyway, with the release of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, I expressed my views, in both social media and face-to-face contexts.  Many of the people with whom I shared my perspective are long-time friends and acquaintances whose views differ from my own.

The past few days have been quite action-packed, and my social media time has been greater than usual.  Accordingly, I now share my adventures, in no particular order:


  1. I expropriated a quote from my friend Alan Skorski (who, as this is being written, is now visiting Israel) and posted it on some Facebook pages:

“As I’m watching all these rallies and headlines about abortion-rights activists, the one recurring theme I’m seeing from ALL of them is the refusal to acknowledge the humanity of an unborn child.”

My own observations were (and have remained) the same as Alan’s.  The posting of his quote has elicited responses such as: “Only it’s not a child…it’s a fetus” and “A fetus is not yet human. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others. Convince us by example not by law,” and “Because that unborn child has to commandeer the body of a fully formed adult. The body of another should never be used without consent.”  Each of these responses, of course, precisely affirms Alan’s contention.


  1. Another response to the same comment:

“And I remember the women who died from back alley and clothes hanger abortions. … I hope you are also prepared to adopt and care for the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children who will now flood the already over taxed foster care system.”

This response was totally expected from a dear friend of 50 years whose views do not always coincide with mine.  On this one, I have two observations:

(A)  It rings very much like the eugenics advocated by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

(B)  If banning abortions would promote the “back-alley and clothes hanger abortions,” then wouldn’t severe restrictions on legal firearm ownership similarly promote “Saturday night special” inferior firearms?


  1. Another response to my quote from Alan:

“Alas, few teen girls have the knowledge and strength to stand up to the pressures I described. I was lucky.”

The pressures described included men using lines such as “You can’t leave me with ‘blue balls’,” “Don’t worry, I’ll marry you,” “But I love you. Don’t you love me?,” or “If you won’t, I’ll find someone who will.”

This is valid. Women are inherently social creatures who care about how others view them; teenage girls all the more so.  This makes them susceptible to such entreaties by men who have a sexual interest in them.

My dialog with this particular person was mostly polite, civil, and rational.  The same cannot be said about all of the interactions.


  1. At one point I decided to elicit discussion on partial-birth abortion. I found a good graphic description of it on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  As should be obvious to those who know me, I certainly am not an acolyte of that organization (pun intentional).  I decided to throw the first snowball with the USCCB link, correctly reckoning that someone would criticize my use of such a source, by which time I would be able to find a more scientifically-oriented source with which to respond.

Sure enough, someone took the bait:  “You might get further if your source of information wasn’t from some Catholic Bishops organization.”

By that time, I had found a webpage from the National Institutes of Health, which I posted.

A little bit further along on that thread (albeit on another social media account), I posted a video description of what a second trimester abortion entails.


  1. Someone posted a quote misattributed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in the Dobbs Opinion.  I challenged it and suggested that he read Justice Thomas’s concurrence and tell me which page it was on.


  1. Speaking of Justice Thomas, on one social media forum someone started spouting all of the typical leftist vitriol of how evil a man Clarence Thomas is. I posted a response to the effect that if Justice Thomas were white then he would fit the leftist narrative and they then would be able to call him a “racist.”


  1. On more than one occasion, I posted something to the effect that if those women who couched abortion as an issue of control over their own bodies really had the will and ability to control their own bodies, then, with the exceptions of forcible rape or incest, they would not conceive unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  One woman chimed in that birth control pills were not 100% effective, and that even grapefruit can interfere with their effectiveness.  I responded that grapefruit can also impede the effects of Viagra or Cialis in men.


  1. Of course, I posed the question of why is it so horrible to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, while the overturnings of the Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott cases were righteous.


  1. While it would be less than candid for me to deny that I derived some enjoyment from fomenting heated discussions about the Dobbs case, there were aspects of my adventures that made me uncomfortable. The recent and ongoing violence, as noted by another Times of Israel blogger, cannot be expected to spontaneously abate any time soon, and my references to it certainly were painful to make.


  1. One correspondent of mine posted on her social media page a cartoon insinuating that the Dobbs decision was the first domino in the deprivation of other fundamental rights. In response, I opined that Roe v. Wade, while it stood, could easily have been the first domino towards allowing parents to kill their grade school children, noting that in ancient Greece and Rome a father had the legal right to kill his own children.


  1. The most sobering of my Dobbs commentary adventures was the item that the pro-abortion crowd is now turning upon the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not stepping down from the bench while Obama was President, instead of dying as she did during the Trump administration and having Donald Trump fill her seat filled with Amy Coney Barrett. This should be highly troubling for all sorts of reasons.

Yes, I do have my issues with the late Madame Justice, but I did hold her in high esteem for her legal talents, especially after having briefly met her during my admission to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Her subsequent raw dogged determination to continue working as long as her mind could surmount the disease that was consuming her body should be a source of inspiration and strength to all lawyers (and to all cancer patients).

First of all, the irony is not lost that those who complain about the Supreme Court being so politicized are themselves politicizing the Court.

Worse yet, Justice Ginsburg’s critics and their ilk here essentially are saying “hurry up and die” to anyone who is sick, feeble, or otherwise not fulfilling their agenda.  This is too, too reminiscent of how the unworthy useless eaters (“nutzlose Esser”) were dealt with in Hitler’s Third Reich.

Way back in the day, I used to say that by calling themselves “Pro Life,” the anti-abortionists were forcing the pro-abortionists to call themselves “Anti-Life” or “Pro-Death.”  It now seems that for some of them, such labels are quite appropriate indeed.

About the Author
Born in Philadelphia, Kenneth lived on Long Island and made Aliyah to Israel. Professionally, he worked as a lawyer in the USA (including as an attorney for the Internal Revenue Service), a college professor and an analyst for the U.S. Department of Defense. He's also a writer and a traveler.
Related Topics
Related Posts

We have a new, improved comments system. To comment, simply register or sign in.