"Craven political correctness is no defense for the indefensible. We should not seek to curry favor with, or the approbation of, the so-called intelligentsia. I daresay that no Jewish woman died as a result of legal restraints prior to Roe v. Wade. No Jewish woman is likely to die in the wake of its repeal. Abortion for medical need will continue to be available in most, and probably all, jurisdictions. If any lives are lost it will be because of inability to afford the expense of travel, not because of constitutional impediment."
Let's take it apart line by line
Craven political correctness is no defense for the indefensible.
Craven political correctness is no defense for the indefensible.
Craven sucking up to evangelicals is also no defense for the indefensible. Most Orthodox Jews who oppose abortion are just taking cues from Christians about morality. They don't consult authentic Jewish sources. They listen to whatever the preachers say on Fox News.
We should not seek to curry favor with, or the approbation of, the so-called intelligentsia.
We should also not seek to curry favor with or the approbation of the Catholic church as Bleich himself does in an earlier paragraph. Why is seeking a smile from the Pope any better or worse than seeking a smile from intelligent people?
I daresay that no Jewish woman died as a result of legal restraints prior to Roe v. Wade.
I daresay Bleich completely wrong. If no Jewish women died as a result of legal restraints before Roe (extremely doubtful) it was only because abortion was legal in the states where almost all of the Jewish women lived.
No Jewish woman is likely to die in the wake of its repeal.
Read that one again. This reassurance that "no Jewish woman is likely to die as a result of its appeal" (almost equally doubtful as the previous claim) is an unbelievably chauvinistic statement. Jewish blood is not cheap but the blood of poor women is?
Abortion for medical need will continue to be available in most, and probably all, jurisdictions.
Abortion for medical need will not continue to be available in most red states; many plan to allow it for emergencies only - with "emergency" being defined as narrowly as possible. And the fact that abortion doctors will need to hire lawyers to prove in court that the emergency was real after they are sued by state empowered vigilantes will only make doctors less willing to deliver this sort of medical aid.
If any lives are lost it will be because of inability to afford the expense of travel, not because of constitutional impediment.
If any poor women die its not society's fault for making medical abortions extremely difficult to obtain. It's her own fault for being too poor to afford travel. Just terrible. Imagine saying that about food: If the poor woman dies its her own fault for not being able to afford the food. Or about any other medical procedure: If the poor woman dies its her own fault for not being able to afford an appendectomy. Does that fly? If you can see clearly why the food example and the appendix example are both morally obtuse, why can't you see it about the abortion example?