Illegal abortion “shield laws,” such as those that exist in New York, are an odd hope the Left has for regenerating social trust. The process is, of course, legally fraught, but it has equally strong cultural implications.
Social trust in the US has seen steady decline for decades, and with that, social time overall is down. We spend more time alone, know fewer of our neighbors, and generally mistrust strangers or acquaintances. The loop reinforces itself, fed lately by a hyper-political arena of wild norms and speech correctness alongside visions of poor immigration policy. Still, the pro-abortion side of things sees fit to base its rationales on what is left of “trust” and “safety.”
The abortion debate now largely revolves around technicalities and backdoors since Roe v Wade’s overturning has closed off any serious avenues for arguing abortion is a universal right. Interstate relations are what remain, represented by cases such as Alabama’s overruled attempt to prosecute interest groups that enable out-of-state travel for abortions or Texas’s Supreme Court-likely case opposing New York’s “shield laws” that protect medical practitioners who send abortion pills to abortion-illegal states.
The Alabama case was unlikely to succeed, and the Texas one should have just as much wind at its back in the pro-life direction. Despite their differences, they showcase critical elements: The trajectory of abortion litigation, as noted earlier, and the rhetoric around it that shapes the antagonism of either side.
“One of the reasons this lawsuit is so important” is “to ensure that, from the moment people become pregnant, they are safe,” a spokesperson for the Alabama attorney general’s office told the Washington Post. Safety is paramount — but all it means, really, is unchecked freedom. Moreover, it means non-judgment. The candid goal from the same interview is to “be a trusted health partner” by not withholding information.
NEW YORK ESCALATES LEGAL BATTLE WITH TEXAS OVER TELEHEALTH ABORTION PROVIDER
Women need trust, and abortionists are the ones who will slide into the role. It becomes the whole motto — “trust women,” as former presidential candidate Kamala Harris declared — and the virtue of choice. As unitive as taking things in the “trust” direction sounds, its proponents know that it has quite the opposite effect: To the impressionable, anti-abortion states seem hostile to women. The specifics, of course, are that anti-abortion states are hostile to illegal activity, even if the states’ convictions stem from moral motivation. All of this pandering contributes to low social trust.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is of no help to its own cause. Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) leans harder toward the Left — “I have made the case that we are too timid,” he says — and even the New York Times rebuffs that directive. Shared values are of no interest, and culture dwindles. Pleasant human interaction is first to go.