Editorial: Happy 30th Anniversary to Roe v Wade

We of The Scallion would like to wish a hearty “Happy Anniversary” to Roe v Wade, the amendment legalizing abortion in the United States of America.

This important piece of legislation does not, as its detractors would claim, teach us that fetuses are the property of their parents to be disposed of according to whims and convenience. It does not teach us to devalue pregnancy or life, born or unborn. Rather, it acknowledges that the woman has the most to lose when an unwanted pregnancy occurs; it acknowledges the incredible risk she undertakes and resources she expends to bear and rear a child. Roe v Wade proclaims that women of child-bearing age matter—that they deserve the right to choose for themselves whether or not to risk their lives, their health, and their futures by continuing a pregnancy. It teaches us that the only person who has any right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the pregnant woman herself.

Consider this true story. A young, unmarried woman attended an expensive religious private high school where she was a top student. She was pretty, popular, good-hearted, and universally liked: she had everything going for her. A member of the honor society, she was slated to become the class valedictorian when she became pregnant. What a brouhaha ensued! Livid about the damage a scandal would do to the school’s reputation, the principal enveloped the young woman in a thick shroud of shame that grew as undeniably as her belly. Too responsible to deny that she was partially responsible for her situation, she forebore as well as she could with the denouncements and denials from the principal and the double-takes from students and teachers. But forcing the young woman to wear the scarlet letter failed to appease the principal, who was desperate to extricate the school from the stigma of scandal. Expelling her from the honor society, he gave her an ultimatum: if she had any intention of graduating with her class, then she would have to have an abortion! Eschewing his threats and exhortations, the young woman chose to have her baby and put it up for adoption. And that is the point. It was not up to the principal—a Catholic priest—charged with running the school. It was not up to the young lady’s lover. It was not up to her parents, teachers, or fellow students—although they all rallied round her and professed to support her, no matter what decision she made. No, the choice was necessarily made by the young woman herself and no other—in her youthful wisdom, she realized that none of those other people would have to live so intimately with the consequences.

Strangely enough, the school never cared to inquire who fathered the child. As anonymous as if he’d never been born, the male received no censure, no dishonor … indeed, no notice or mention whatsoever.

To anti-abortionists, who feel entitled to decide unilaterally for all women everywhere, we of The Scallion would like to offer a few remarks. We understand your point of view. Everyone knows that each abortion costs a human life. No reasonable person would ever praise abortion as being a perfect solution. Pregnancy and abortion are not so clear-cut. Neither is the pat suggestion of giving the child up for adoption. Only the woman herself knows what is best for her in a bad situation.

A Catholic bishop once said, “You can’t be both pro-choice and Catholic.” Not only do we of The Scallion dispute that, but we postulate that it is also possible and reasonable to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. The bottom line is this: if you disapprove of abortion, then by all means do not have one. But please realize where your rights and responsibilities end with respect to the rest of the world. Please understand that, until someone elects you God, others must be allowed sovereignty over their own persons. They must remain free to determine their own lives and deal with the consequences. Meanwhile, do not stop fighting to save the lives of the unborn. Instead of demanding a uterus-Nazi dictatorship, focus that zeal into preventing unwanted pregnancies. Develop and offer women safe, practical, and positive alternatives to abortion. Give them options they can feel good about; then stand back and let them choose. Instead of gutting or overturning Roe v Wade, let us keep it strong—even if only as a reminder, as a last-resort and safety net for all. Help us reduce abortion voluntarily. We of The Scallion would be delighted to see an America where—without dictatorship, fascism, or autocracy—abortion is so rare that it becomes as quaintly historic and unthinkable as tar and feathers, drawing and quartering, and, we hope, slavery. But this brave new world would be worthless if it were purchased at the expense of a woman's choice and freedom to live her own life and determine her own future.

Happy 30th anniversary, Roe v Wade. As we of The Scallion fight to preserve all Americans’ rights to self-determination, we hope to see you intact and well in 2033.

U.S. Borders Officially Closed

January 22, 2003. The borders of the United States of America are now officially closed to all travel into or out of the country. The new paradigm is affecting a great many individuals and families who immigrated to the U.S. from places like the Middle East to seek asylum and opportunity but who are finding themselves again the victims of racism, hatred, and violence. Other affected populations include foreign students: coming here to espouse the finest of what America stands for, many of these young idealists have been forbidden reentry to the U.S. after visiting their families abroad. “When I first came here, I was amazed at how freely I could live my life,” recalled an engineering student who calls himself only “Ahmed” for fear of reprisals. “I could say what I wanted, do what I wanted, go where I wanted … it was a breath of fresh air to one who was suffocating. I was thrilled that I could come here, get an education, and bring home not only my new technical knowledge but also teach about the wonders of America and how good it is to be free—to determine one’s life for oneself.” He sighed and continued, “But it’s no longer like that. America is fast becoming a police state, and, because of my face and my religion, I am no longer welcome here—I am no longer safe. Also, because of my face and my religion, I must go and register with the INS. My American friends started a dark joke that the INS office is like the ‘roach motel’—we go in, but we never come out. And we must laugh at this or else we would cry.”

A spokesman for the administration remarked, “It’s probably a good thing that Americans can no longer leave the country, since the President’s foreign policies have made them such targets of hatred and violence. Heaven knows that we can’t protect them here at home, let alone abroad. We will all perforce have to content ourselves with the President’s insular, Oz-like example of being satisfied to look no further than your own backyard. Personally, I feel deeply sorry for those who came here to escape persecution but who have become its unwitting victims yet again—how do they escape this time? With a ‘U.S.’ brand on their passports, they can’t return to their native countries because they would be persecuted as traitors. Where can they go from here? Where would they be safe?

“Off the record, I think the single greatest reason that America is in such deep trouble right now at home and abroad is the President’s perception of the world. It’s no secret that he slept through or cut all his classes, that he never voluntarily read a book, and that, bar politics, he would never have left Texas. I believe that this has severely warped his world view. He evinces the perception that the world consists of his family’s properties and that anything outside of that is an illusion promulgated by some sort of Orwellian Hollywood. France seems especially challenging for the President to wrap his tiny little mind around. Given his socio-political and religious zealotry, it seems inconceivable to him that there could possibly exist places with large groups of people who have very different priorities and opinions from his. Iraq to him is a fiction, but so are the Democrats, the middle class, women, minorities, and the poor. Perhaps the reason for his flippant treatment of these and other entities is that he simply does not believe them to exist. It is no crime to bait and switch a construct or a figment of someone else’s imagination. Perhaps he is only humoring the rest of us because we seem so convinced that things outside ourselves exist. But, then again, why bother pretending to care if he disbelieves that we too exist?

“This is giving me a headache.”