Connecticut, as most legislators in the state’s General Assembly know, is called “the nutmeg state.” The descriptive phrase, when first launched, bordered on an insult rather than a compliment. The state’s nutmeg farmers occasionally mixed wooden nutmegs in their product to deceive purchasers and boost sales. Such sharpers, those nutmeggers!
Eventually, of course, the plot to cheat purchasers was discovered and the nutmeggers gave up their sinful ways. Proper business relations were restored, but the phrase stuck and was later appropriated as a compliment.
Connecticut, “the nutmeg state,’ may also justly be called “the casino state.” Gambling is an old way of separating most of the people most of the time from their hard won assets in return for – the pleasure of losing money.
Casinos have been perfectly legal in the nutmeg state ever since then Governor Lowell Weicker made a side deal with certain Indian tribes according to which the tribes were given a monopoly on state gambling in return for a percentage of slot collections reverting to state government.
The state also may justly call itself “the abortion state.” Abortion – for some reason known only to those who profit monetarily by the practice -- falls in Connecticut under the rubric of “health care,” even when the abortion is not necessary to save the life of the prospective mother. Our political language has yet to catch up with society’s many ethical distortions and present day moral confusion. Unsurprisingly, postmoderns, who tend to treat abortion as if it were a virtue, also seem unable to draw proper distinctions between what grandpa naively called “the sexes.” Metaphysical confusion lies at the root of much of our unease in the postmodern world.
Connecticut made abortion legal in the state through a 1990 statute that replicates Roe vs. Wade, lately overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court found that its earlier decision in Roe vs. Wade, was wrongly decided and effectively kicked back to state legislatures decision making power in the matter of abortions. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization turns on the question: Who should decide the issue and not how should the issue be decided. The high court ruled that the legislatures of the various states – not the judiciary – should legislatively shape abortion matters.
The high court decision left Connecticut’s 1990 statute undisturbed, a certain indication that the justices did not – and never intended to – abolish abortion in the states.
Connecticut’s abortion statute is rightly regarded as codifying Roe vs. Wade. “Section 19a-602” reads in part: “Termination of pregnancy prior to viability. Abortion after viability prohibited; exception. (a) The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the patient in consultation with the patient's physician or, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section, the patient's advanced practice registered nurse, nurse-midwife or physician assistant.
“(b) No abortion may be performed upon a patient after viability of the fetus except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient.”
“Never underestimate the creativity of people who cherish abortion, Andrew Fowler writes in National Review. The Connecticut state legislature is considering adopting an amendment, proposed under the guise of a “right to privacy,” that is predominantly focused on enshrining “reproductive rights” in the state constitution…
“At first glance, this Trojan horse measure may appear innocuous, even agreeable to proponents of conservative, limited government. Yet embedded within the “right to privacy” umbrella is the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including, but not limited to, the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end one’s own pregnancy.” The resolution prefaces this passage by stating that this right shall not be infringed “without the showing of a compelling state interest.”
Too much salt, as the master chef says, spoils the broth.
The embedded “right to privacy” as it relates to abortion, the high court found in overruling Roe v. Wade, was unconstitutional, one of the reasons the court overthrew Roe v. Wade. It is also infuriatingly inapposite. The justices who affirmed Roe v. Wade did so by importing into their decision a “right to privacy” spun out of judicial hot air, emanating from an “aura” that supposedly surrounded all the rights mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
Foul ball, the court most recently rightly ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson.
President of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action Peter Wolfgang commented on the prospective measure: “By making ‘individual privacy’ a pre-eminent right, subject to only the highest standard of review, other mutually agreed to activities, done in private, may also be subject to the highest ‘compelling state interest’ standard. These might include prostitution, euthanasia, assisted suicide, necrophilia, voluntary slavery, incest, and bigamy. These are all activities that may be conducted in private between consenting adults.”
Appellate courts, especially in view of the high court decision reversing Roe v. Wade, may be willing to take such objections more seriously than Blumenthal, who favors abortion at any stage in a pregnancy, euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Don Pesci is a political columnist of long standing, about 40 years, who has written for various state newspapers, among them The Journal Inquirer, the Waterbury Republican American, the New London Day, the Litchfield County Times, the Torrington Register Citizen and other Register Citizen papers. He maintains a blog, among the oldest of its kind in Connecticut, which serves as a repository and archive, for his columns; there are approximately 3,000 entrees in Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes From A Blue State, virtually all of them political columns stretching back to 2004. He also appears once a week Wednesdays on 1080 WTIC Newstalk radio with Will Marotti.