Abortion, Sex And Working On Capitol Hill

Okay, let’s talk about sex on Capitol Hill. There is a lot of it. Always has been, probably a lot more in the past than either the present realizes or the past is willing to admit. There was always a lot going on behind the alleged prudery.

Photo courtesy of Freerange.

Regardless of the frequency, sex on Capitol Hill among single people has consequences, as does sex between married and unmarried people. Try as we all might and have, sex is not something to be taken casually and recognizing that fact cannot be avoided, either.

It’s also impossible to avoid the issue of abortion, especially for those who work for Members of Congress and/or congressional committees. It’s a constant presence for everybody, those who are pro-abortion and those who are pro-life.

It’s a constant because of this unavoidable fact: Sooner or later, sex leads to babies and, boy, do things get complicated when that happens. Too often, it’s escape time for the man, crisis time for the woman and tragedy for the baby.

I came of age in the 60s as the Sexual Revolution first exploded across American college and university campuses. By the 70s when I began working on the Hill, popular culture was pretty much conquered.

Things have only gotten worse since then, as evidenced by the sad reality of steadily growing illegitimacy and millions of children growing up without both parents. Intact families have almost become exceptions that prove the rule.

“It’s way past time for blunt candor on this issue: the Sexual Revolution is not merely a failure, it’s become a plague.”

There’s been a lot of BS written on this issue by people on every side of it, maybe more so on it  than any other because it is unavoidable for everybody.

So it’s way past time for blunt candor on this issue: The Sexual Revolution is not merely a failure, it’s become a plague.

And so I encourage you to read this superb essay in The Federalist today by Noelle Mering, entitled “Is Sexual Autonomy Worth the Cost in Human Lives?” This essay is a double dose of blunt candor.

Here is a sample:

“The promise of the sexual revolution was that sex can be meaningless. Indeed, it has to be meaningless to preserve our autonomy. If it has intrinsic meaning, independent of whatever we desire it to mean, then that might signify that we have duties that affect our autonomy.

“This revolution has thrown human relationships into chaos from the inside out, most tragically the relationship between parent and child. A baby is a glaring, obtrusive, manifestation of meaning interjected into our autonomy.

“This revolution has thrown human relationships into chaos from the inside out, most tragically the relationship between parent and child.”

“To maintain the illusion of sexual autonomy requires us to be at war with, not only the science of basic human embryology, but also our very selves: our bodies, minds, and emotions. This is casual, so why do I feel intimately bonded to him? This is casual, so why do I feel used? This is casual, so why is a baby coming?”

If you caught Alyssa Milano’s tweeted call for a sex strike by women to protest the Georgia legislature passage of a highly restrictive abortion law, you will especially appreciate what Mering has to say on that score.

And here’s something else she has to say that ought to strike home with you, for better or worse:

“We might look at the modern dating world and ask ourselves if this life of illusion that we are fighting so hard to preserve is worth protecting at the price of innocent human lives. We cannot protect both.”

You have to read this, for both your personal health and well-being and protecting your professional responsibilities. Go here.

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here: https://hillfaith.blog/about-hillfaith-2/

2 thoughts on “Abortion, Sex And Working On Capitol Hill”

  1. Well, here’s a question. Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, is well-known for supporting the idea that a pregnant woman has a right to not only have an abortion, but then sell the resulting baby organs to the highest bidder. That is, Glenn supports the idea that women have a right to be baby organ farms, that it should be legal for them to support themselves this way.

    So, tell me, Mark Tapscott… is Glenn Reynolds a ghoul or is his position reasonable?


    1. Well, here’s a question for you, Steve: Do you intend your query to put me on the horns of your imagined dilemma or are you merely on a lark with a straw man?


Comments are closed.