We could call most Democrats a contradiction wrapped in an enigma but to be honest there is nothing enigmatic about them. They are just a contradiction. And while we could give them some small credit for not always understanding their own contradictions, acting as they often do solely on feelings and impulse, when they have their own newspaper and use it to propagandize the subscriber-ship with bovine bloviations, we can offer only pity.
Pity, and a rebuttal regarding the contradictions which drive them, the crux of which is that the state has a right to interfere in everything, at every age, in every way possible except when it comes to the sexual behavior of anyone with a womb, capable of childbirth.
Liberal-progressives have a rabid obsession with stopping us from doing things we want to do. They are concerned with what we eat, where we eat it, where our food comes from, how it was treated before it became food, how it was cooked, what we put on what we eat, and even how it is served and what is served with it.
Electricity is beyond our own management capabilities as well. The progressive has a need to control who is allowed to produce it, how they produce it, where it comes from, how much of it there is, what we are permitted to use it for, how efficiently it is used by the things that use it, and in what manner we use it, to the point of wanting to control for us how warm or cold our homes need to be.
Defending ourselves is also not a tool to be left in our tool box; they would rather leave that up to someone who works for a union that supports a democrat, making "defense" ex-post facto; an act by the perpetrator in justifying why they deprived us of something, up to an including our lives, when the police show up to document the event for the historical record; a documentation we are promised will bring the perpetrator to justice if in fact we have survived to witness it and they do not manage to put a suitable defense (to which they are of course entitled.)
This is just a sample of the contents of the rusted mental box in which we find the progressives guide to what constitutes states interest. That is, the things which must compel government to interfere in the lives of others. There are a lot of things in the box. In fact, almost everything is in that box except lust, and more specifically intercourse in the context of a woman’s right to her own body.
Where sex is concerned, the progressive governments role is not to regulate with the intention of limiting undesirable outcomes as with most other liberal policy positions, it is to step on the accelerator, to advocate the right to unintentional outcomes, propagandized as choice, with ample tax payer funded remedies or exit strategies in the event that the exercise of this hallowed civil right should somehow go awry. When it comes to sex the world is a bedroom and the government has no business being there.
And this is the grand contradiction. In politicizing the vagina, liberal politicians who would deny you salt on your french fries will do everything in their power to promote and defend lust regardless of long term negative impacts on women specifically, and on society as a whole, focused primarily on support of the need for abortion, any time and all the time.
Wading into part of this debate is the Concord Monitor, which published a Staff editorial to scare monger on the subject of re-instituting Parental Notification in New Hampshire; the right of a parent of a minor to know if their little princess has found herself unwittingly endowed with a by-product of progressive sex politics and in need of invasive surgery. (See Skips salvo here).
The Monitor is of an equal mind with the progressive socialist central planners; "If there’s grass on the field play ball." Rather than suggest that people who are too young to smoke, drink alcohol, drive, vote, or even decide for themselves between soda or juice at the school cafeteria forgo intercourse for a few more years because it might not be the best idea just yet, they opt instead for an all-in strategy and justify it with an unregulated "the best offense is a good defense" approach (condoms), backed up with a mandatory surgical strike capability whereby undesirable outcomes can be remedied through clandestine cloak and dagger assassinations.
"You never saw me. I was never here."
Any effort to allow some crusty old institution like parenthood to stand between a tweener’s womb and her so-called "constitutional" right to an abortionist shall not be tolerated by the progressives or their broadsheet rag in Concord, even though this issue does not ban abortions. It simply requires parental consent should the family agree it is necessary.
And that still is not good enough.
So while the busy-bodies would never allow any other invasive surgical procedures to be performed on the sly without parental consent (because any good liberal lawyer would want a piece of that lawsuit), parents who might get a polite reminder note from the school administration on their policy regarding the exclusion of sugary snacks from bag lunches have no rights when it comes to abortions. The universal assumption on the left must be that a parents concern for the well being of their daughters may cover the entirety of their young lives, their education, development, athletics, the arts, and every part of their anatomy, except the womb once it becomes fertile. And it has nothing to do with all that abortion lobby money they get either.
Such is the contradiction of progressivism. Such is the position of the Concord Monitor.