At events like this weekend’s Values Voter Summit, the most interesting stuff happens not at plenary sessions where pols and opinion-leaders deliver calculated and polished remarks, but at the break-out sessions where it’s more a matter of The Righteous Remnant having an internal but public conversation. At the Prospect, Nathalie Baptiste tells us about her experience at a session misleadingly titled “How Conservatives Can Win Millenials and Women,” featuring among others Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life:
Not only is the War on Women apparently fabricated by the godless lefties, Hawkins even found a way to paint men as the true sufferers in the abortion debate. Many young men approach her, she claimed, to tell her that they feel excluded from the discussion. She claims that millennial men are more anti-abortion than their women counterparts; this is the case, she said, because women who were unabashedly pro-abortion raised these men. Hawkins told the audience that she often tells men that if they would have to provide child support for a child they fathered, then they should have a say in whether or not the woman “kills their child.”
Now aside from the fact that Hawkins presumably believes the government, not the woman or the man immediately involved, should have the definitive “say” in prohibiting most or all abortions, there’s the question of what a “say” would look like for the “excluded” dudes. A chance to make a case for carrying a pregnancy to term? A right to make an offer of holy matrimony, prenatal care, or some other tangible assistance? Or a veto, just in case the government doesn’t exercise it first?
There is only one person–and by that, no, I don’t mean “zygote”–in this kind of reproductive decision whose body is involved, whose health is at stake, and who will actually have to live with the consequences, and that’s who should have the “say.” But it’s interesting an antichoice woman thinks the poor dudes are an aggrieved constituency to be tended.