Nat Hentoff, who recently passed away, was a hero to the left for his support of civil liberties until he committed the crime of opposing abortion. Then he was a pariah; "Nearly ten years ago I declared myself a pro-lifer. A Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing pro-lifer. Immediately, three women editors at The Village Voice, my New York base, stopped speaking to me. Not long after, I was invited to speak on this startling heresy at Nazareth College in Rochester (long since a secular institution). Two weeks before the lecture, it was canceled. The women on the lecture committee, I was told by the embarrassed professor who had asked me to come, had decided that there was a limit to the kind of speech the students could safely hear, and I was outside that limit." "Pro-choicers clearly are only interested in their version of the choice in this matter. But why are the liberals among them so immovably illiberal only when it comes to abortion? The male pro-choicers, by and large, consider this to be entirely an issue for women to decide. And the only women they know are pro-choice. If a man has any doubts or subversive ambivalences, he keeps them to himself because should he speak of them, he will be banished from the company of all the progressive women he knows--and any whom he might hope to know. Pro-choice women are so unyielding because they profoundly believe that without the power to abort at will, they will be enslaved. Once an abortion is wanted, the fetus, as one woman told me, is--to some women--"the "enemy within." In the fight not to be enslaved, liberalism is an abstraction. Accordingly, I am no longer surprised to find myself considered an external enemy. For years, American Civil Liberties Union affiliates around the country invited me to speak at their fund-raising Bill of Rights dinners. But once I declared myself a pro-lifer, all such invitations stopped. They know I agree with them on most ACLU policies, but that no longer matters. I am now no better than Jesse Helms. Free speech, after all, has its limits. " http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff_pro-life_left.html Since I came out against abortion I have received far more abuse from liberals than I did from conservatives for opposing the invasion of Iraq. RIP Nat Hentoff
Hentoff was part of a large group of liberal opponents of abortion on the grounds that it takes a human life. He spoke in front of very large groups of Catholics and other religious progressives in NYC many years ago. I was there when it happened. Even the conservative National Review applauded him for always remaining consistent in his principles.
I read Mr Hentoff's columns for many years having been a long time reader of the Village Voice and having attended a number of progressive pro life meetings both in New York and in Minnesota. He did NOT consider abortion illegal nor is that idea a part of the movement. On the contrary, it is acknowledged that abortion was legal under the Anglo-Saxon common law. This is a FACT that conservatives deny even though it is clearly and unequivocally demonstrated in Black's Legal study. The point is that such progressives opposed abortion on moral grounds. They wanted social reform which would enable and persuade a mother to give birth as society would help her care for the child. This is stark contrast with the deluded right wingers who claim they care for the child but don't give a damn if he/she is born but ultimately dies of starvation because the impoverished mother is homeless or dies on the streets. Mr Hentoff was a genuine humanitarian in this regard. Conservatives are hypocrites and their policies are the reason for the proliferation of abortion in society.
I think the problem isn't so much that you guys are against abortion, but what the practical application of what you want would be if you ever got your way. An America where abortion was illegal would have one of two options. The first would be like it is in the Philippines, where it's technically illegal but there are 800,000 abortions performed every year. This is a dangerous state of affairs where 4000 women a year die or are injured in botched abortions. The second would be a police state where doctors would inform on patients, family members would inform on each other, and you would have to lock up thousands of women in order to make examples out of them. This would be equally awful. Hey, anyone remember when Trump said the women should be punished, and then quickly backtracked? It was the one time he realized he said something truly stupid. Now, if the "Pro-Life" crowd was truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, there are ways to do that. More comprehensive sex education without any religious nonsense. Paid family and medical leave so that the unexpected pregnancy wouldn't be an economic disaster. Universal Health Care. Countries that have these things have a much lower abortion rate than the US has.
In fairness to Trump he was asked if women should be punished IF abortion was illegal. He got in trouble with Repubs for saying that because Repubs don't want the results of their hatred for women publicized. They don't want the FACT that women would have to be investigated, prosecuted, humiliated, separated from their children and families and jailed just like drug dealers, murderers,rapists, child molesters and other vile criminals.......that would highlight the FACT that women who have abortions are the "Mom" next door, your MOTHER, your sister, your best friend....and Repubs want to treat them like the worst criminals.... .Although Repubs and other Anti-Choicers relish punishing women for having consensual sex they do NOT want that talked about. Another proof that they want to punish women for having sex? They want Planned Parenthood shut down so women have less access to health care including pre-natal care, and BIRTH CONTROL!
I support all of these things along with access to contraception. Where have pro-choice democrats implemented Universal health care? Only five states provide paid family or sick leave. What about the other democratic states?
Universal healthcare would be a done deal if not for obstructionist Republicans. It isn't Democrats, Pro-Choice or Pro-Life , who are trying to deny women access to health care and Birth control by shutting down clinics like Planned Parenthood. I think maybe you should pay more attention to what Republicans are doing to restrict women's rights than what flack ONE person takes...
Wrong. Obama had a democrat majority and never considered universal health care. You embarrass yourself with such ignorant comments. There are plenty of groups that provide health care. Planned Parenthood doesn't have a divine right to my tax dollars. I think you should get your facts right before you start lecturing other people.
Get facts right? Planned Parenthood receives no tax dollars for abortions. But I doubt you care as long as no tax dollars help women in any way. Obama DID consider universal health care but had to trim it to Affordable Care because of Repugs.
Obama made the mistake of thinking that Republicans would actually try to do something good for the country rather than pander to the Hate Radio Crowd, if he made a few "Free Market" concessions. That was a mistake. Not to mention you had guys like Joe Leiberman who apparently thinks the American taxpayer should subsidize universal healthcare in Israel but not America.
Pro life progressives like Mr Hentoff and like Consistent Ethic advocates here in Minnesota blame Republicans and the pro death right wing for the proliferation of abortion.
It's not really about free speech. The government isn't locking him up. It's more about how badly Americans treat people who disagree with them. To me it seems this comes from both sides, but abortion is an unusually sensitive issue. Nevertheless, we shouldn't ostracize somebody just because they have an opposing view. Part of being secure in your view is being willing to hear and debate the other side. He was wrong about abortion, but that shouldn't have made him somebody to be shunned.
What do you guys even mean though? He definitely wanted near-universal healthcare coverage, to the extent that it can be achieved with these piddly penalties for not getting coverage. It was never really clear to me if he wanted to try an actually liberal approach, as in a single payer system, but even if he wanted that he probably considered them unreachable in such a socialism-phobic county, even though it works pretty well for other advanced nations. So we get this compromise approach that actually resembles what Newt had proposed back when the Clintons proposed their plan, and he gets accused of being a socialist anyway. He had a no-win situation with the republicans.
"Right after he entered the White House Obama set up a health care reform task force chock full of big insurance company representatives. Not one of the more than 80 U.S. House of Representative members who had endorsed single payer – not even the veteran Black Congressman John Conyers, author of a House single payer bill – was invited to participate." http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/16/how-pure-is-your-hate/
