You Gotta Pay the Troll Toll ....To Get Over the George Washington Bridge

Amidst the recent uproar over the bridgegate scandal plaguing the Christie administration there is one overwhelming theme and that is the Governor's bombastic, combative style. While the Governor and his administration would like his constituents and presumably the nation (if you believe the Christie 2016 rumors) to believe he is a firm but fair, tell it like it is candidate that is willing to cross the isle. But that simply isn't the case.  Despite Christie's un-charastically apologetic speech (although elements of sorry i'm not sorry were present).

The first of many examples of the Governor using his political power to punish anyone that dare not obey his wishes is the case of the late Alan Rosenthal, a Political Science professor at Rutgers University. Rosenthal was selected to be a member of a committee  to redistrict the state. Christie had pushed hard for Rosenthal to select the plan that would benefit the GOP over the Democrat's proposed plan.  When Rosenthal refused to select the plan the Governor wanted, Christie responded by cutting $169,000 to two programs at Rutgers that Rosenthal had founded.


Further research into the Christie's political past only reveal further examples of revenge and clear steps that Christie took to eliminate any competition.  Even members of Christie's own party are not safe from serious consequences for making the slightest critique of the Governor. When New Jersey Senator Sean Kean (R) claimed that in 2010 the Governor should have declared a state of emergency sooner to keep motorists off the road and safe sooner the Senator quickly found himself in hot water. When Christie returned from his vacation in Disney (conveniently missing the snow) he held a conference in the Senator's district and specifically instructed him not to attend. If that wasn't a clear enough message, Kean's district was redrawn and his seat was eliminated the next year.

What is so damming about this recent event is that it calls into question the true nature of Chris Christie. Even if the Governor truly did not know of his staff's actions they felt as their actions were acceptable due to the example the Governor had set for them in the past.

9 Months of Suspended Rights

While I am admittedly not an expert on constitutional law, however I feel quite certain making this assertion. There is no law that can compel me to donate organs, tissue or blood. Why? Because I have autonomy over my body. This means that if someone I know has a rare blood disorder and needs a transfusion there is absolutely nothing legally that could compel me to donate my blood to that person if I happened to be a match. While I of course would (because I am not a monster) but the principle behind this is an important distinction. It means that my body is my own and no one can force me to make a decision about what happens to me without my consent. That is unless I become pregnant, in which case this autonomy is suspended for 9 months.

One recent case of a woman's rights being superseded by her fetus can be found, not surprisingly in Texas.  Marlise Munoz is a 33 year old woman from Texas who suffered a pulmonary embolism in November and was rendered brain dead. She had discussed with her husband her wishes in an instance such as this and that is to not be kept alive on life support. However, according to the Texas Advance Directives Act "a person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient".   If Ms. Munoz was not pregnant there would be nothing stopping her husband and the hospital from fulfilling her final wishes.


This is only the most recent example of the anti-choise laws diminishing rights promised under Roe V. Wade.  A study conducted by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, found 413 criminal and civil cases where law enforcement intervened in the lives of pregnant women between 1973 (the year Roe V. Wade was upheld) and 2005.

One such case is the story of Alicia Beltran. Ms. Beltran was a 28 year old woman from Wisconsin who admitted to he OB-GYN that she had a history of drug abuse. While Ms. Beltran was not abusing drugs while she was pregnant she was still charged with "fetal endangerment" and forced into rehab. Furthermore, Ms. Beltran attempted to obtain legal counsel, yet her fetus had already been appointed one.  In this case, Ms. Beltran's right to due process was less important than a fetus.


I am not anti-fetuses or babies by any means. However, I have a problem with women's right's taking the back seat to the rights of the unborn.