In his opening statement at Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Senator Cory Booker warned that a Justice Barrett would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Predictably, Booker avoided addressing the legal merits of overturning Roe, instead relying on consequentialist arguments for upholding it. Moreover, in making those arguments, he resorted to euphemism rather than scientific or moral reasoning. Women in states that banned or restricted abortion in a post-Roe world would have “no options” according to Booker. Of course, Booker knows that describing abortion as an “option” is politically preferable to acknowledging that the result of an abortion procedure is the ending of a distinct human life, and delving into the violent reality of what such a procedure looks like.
Senator Booker worries about limiting the “options” that pregnant women have. Isn’t it odd that the only option that Democrats ever talk about is abortion, and yet they are loathe to describe that option in any detail? Perhaps we should all be more focused on providing women with better options.