Being Liberal Means Never Having to Make Sense

Today's WaPo includes an Op Ed by feminist columnist Ellen Goodman. Goodman's topic is a few recent prosecutions of women who refused a C-section, thus killing their unborn child. Unsurprisingly, Goodman's horrified, because pregnant women should be able to reject major surgery. Even where her doctor determines a C-section will save the baby. Though Goodman acknowledges 25 percent of American newborns are delivered by C-section--without harming mother or child--she's concerned the slippery slope could undermine a pregnant women's rights: "do we want a doctor's opinion to carry the force of law?"

Hold on--is this the same Ellen Goodman who fiercely opposed the ban on partial birth abortion? Back then, she opposed any law not containing an exception for the health of the mother. And, said Goodman, "heath" was a matter for expert physicians: "Is it up to the Congress to overrule the doctor?"

I'm aware the two views probably could be twisted into some Frankensteinian consistency. But I doubt Goodman knows--or cares. Remember the National Organization for Women and the ACLU defending Andrea Yates, who confessed to murdering her five children, ages 7 years to 6 months? (They retreated after considerable outrage.) For the left, women are victims--even if there's actually a casualty. How far do liberals like Goodman think "a woman's right" extends?

Essentially forever. Goodman admits the woman who declined a C-section and doomed her baby made "a bad decision." She sure did. But when a bad decision becomes a body bag, expect legal consequences. Even where the decision-maker's female and pregnant.