Saturday, July 30, 2022

The Building Trades Executive Director is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Chris Hannan

In the latest issue of "Building Trades News," Executive Secretary Chris Hannan used his monthly  column to denounce the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

However, the first part of his column shows the importance of fighting for life:

In California, the Building Trade, "the Construction Department of the AFL-CIO," has been standing up for workers' rights for more than 100 years.

It seems really strange that private sector unions consider abortion a "worker's right."

The ability to be a member of a union has empowered us to maintain this voice and our place in the middle class. Our country stands for freedom, including freedom to have differences of opinion, religious, and every possible difference imaginable.

Except, it seems, when it comes to defending the rights of the unborn. What really bothers me about this line of reasoning is that discussion is an abstraction. Yes, people can and should be able to discuss differences of opinion and make their points plainly heard without suffering consequences. However, when we are talking about human lives, the issue goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Life is a natural right, and natural law requires that we defend life.

One cannot claim that they can about freedom when in the same sentence they want to maintain the right to take life for any reason.

As the leader of this Building Trades Council, a union member and the father of a wonderful daughter and son, I feel th eneed to address a terrible step backwards for our country.

He is a parent, and he is a proud parent. He would have never been a parent if he had killed his children before they were born.

In 2018, my wife and I were told that our unborn son was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. At times, it seemed like we were encouraged not to bring our into this world.

Later in his column, he affirms that he and his wife put their children first, including their newborn son. They choose life, and that is a good thing.

But then he writes about his son:

David is a wonderful boy who brings joy to my life every day. He inspoires me every moment.

Guess what, Chris: every baby has that power and opportunity if they are allowed to be born!

And yet ...

In June, the United States Supreme Court overturned the law of the land that was codified in Roe v. Wade.

There are so many problems with this one sentence alone, I do not know where to begin. The Supreme Court does not make law, so it could not overturn a law, even if it wanted to. Second of all, because Roe was not a law to begin with, it was never a law in the first place! Third, the repeal of this decision does not strike down any abortion laws, because the Supreme Court rightly restored the legislative authority on this issue back to the states, where it has always belonged.

The ability of women to make their own health care deciscions was stripped away by the Supreme Court.

This is another ludicrous statement. Abortion access is not healthcare. Abortions hurt the mother, as much as they kill another life. This is the most outrageous rhetorical fraud in the whole abortion debate. On top of that, a mother's desire for healthcare is not compromised, even if the mother supposedly believes that includes abortion, because the mother can seek an abortion in a number of states.

When I read this article, I was struck by the lack of logical flow, since he talks about freedom, then he talks about being a parent, he then shares the joy of being a parent, then all of a sudden segues into criticizing the Supreme Court for repeal Roe.

He gives considerable attention to his joy in becoming a father, and he stands by he and his wife' decision to have their third child, even though he faced a significant health deformity. This line of reasoning would suggest that he is pro-life.

And yet, he believes that the Supreme Court was anti-freedom for requiring the states to enact codes allowing abortion. The court expanded freedom, and many states are taking a stand to protect life, which makes the expression of freedom possible.

I wonder how the members of the Building Trades Council feel about their current executive director. He is inarticulate, partially incoherent, politically obtuse, and greatly misinformed. Perhaps we can understand why so many union leaders throw in with the Democrat Party, and at the same time when many union members feel increasingly disenfranchised by their own leaders. Once again, what does pushing for abortion rights have to do with fighting for worker freedoms on the jobsite?

No comments:

Post a Comment