Michelle Wolf is definitely in the “all attention is good attention” camp — something which may endure her to an exceptionally liberal fanbase but not a whole lot of other people. And when you’re dealing with a decidedly serious issue like abortion, being unserious for attention isn’t exactly going to work.
As you may remember, Wolf was the entertainment at the White House Correspondents Dinner, which further cemented its reputation as a make-work program for the less-talented members of the “Daily Show” cast with a performance that included this line about Vice President’s opposition to abortion: “He thinks abortion is murder which, first of all, don’t knock it ’til you try it — and when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you’ve got to get that baby out of there.” Classy.
If you thought that was pretty bad, you probably ought to stay away from a recent monologue on abortion from her Netflix show, “The Break with Michelle Wolf.” It’s been two-and-a-half whole months since Wolf had gotten attention for saying something completely jaw-dropping about abortion, however, and she was apparently in dire need of attention — and boy, did an opening on the Supreme Court deliver.
According to Newsbusters, the current episode came one week after she mocked those who called her “unhinged.” I’m not entirely sure what she wanted us to call her rant over the fact that President DonaldTrump could replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy with someone more conservative, one who could possibly overturn major abortion cases. Outré, maybe? Would the French etymology make that slightly classier?
“It’s so ironic that Trump could be the guy who ends legal abortion. That dude has been responsible for more abortions than the invention of back alleys,” Wolf said to laughter. She then turned backstage.
“We were originally going to use coat-hanger! And before that, stairs!”
There’s nothing like grotesque imagery that emphasizes how violent an abortion is to really make a principled stand for it — of course, under the aegis that any culture that respects life is theoretically impossible and that if any single decision on abortion is overturned, from Roe v. Wade to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, women will just simply have to start throwing themselves down the stairs. There’s literally no other option available to them.
Oh, and by the way, I’m assuming Wolf probably supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Perhaps she ought to google her husband.
“To any men watching, I’m sure this brings up a lot of feelings and thoughts and points you want to make, and I just want you to know that’s all very irrelevant,” Wolf continued to applause.
“Abortion is a woman’s right. And I know acknowledging that is hard for some of you, because that would mean you’d also have to acknowledge that women are naturally equipped to do the most powerful thing in the world: give life. While you guys are naturally equipped to do what? Lift suitcases into the overhead compartment? If women embrace the fact that they control life, that makes it a lot harder for men to control women.”
This is not only disgusting, but it also clangs like the last point for a very simple reason: If abortion is women embracing the fact that they control life to Wolf, she’s also tacitly admitting the unborn are lives — and when someone decides that they can control whether life exists or not, that typically invites the intervention of the state.
Also, just in case Wolf and her viewers need a refreshers on the basics of high school health classes, both parties create life and both parties can control its creation through any number of products available at their local druggist. Last I checked, Griswold v. Connecticut — the Supreme Court ruling that legalized contraception — wasn’t under assault from any judicial angle.
Wolf also made the revolting suggestion that dismembering your child through abortion should be as easy as ordering from a fast food restaurant.
“Abortion shouldn’t be a luxury…it should be on the Dollar Menu at McDonald’s! she said. “‘Hey, I’d like a large diet Coke, and can you get this egg out of my McMuffin?'”
Wolf closed with another predictable argument, claiming we really should change what we call people who are pro-life.
“I know some people call themselves ‘pro-life,’ but pro-life is a propaganda term that isn’t real, like healthy ice cream and handsome testicles,” Wolf said. (Ho ho, genitalia humor!)
“Get the terminology straight. First of all, these people are anti-abortion, which means they’re anti-woman. If these people were actually pro-life, they’d be fighting hard for health care, childcare, education, gun control, and protecting the environment. But these anti-abortion do not care about life, they just care about birth. Like they think that’s the only place you can watch a woman s*** on a table!”
Ah, reductionism. First of all, calling something a different name — one born of demagogy — isn’t going to change much except making the argument more pitched. Nobody who didn’t start watching this agreeing with their host is going to sit through Wolf’s high-pitched rant and say, “Gee, maybe she’s right. I’m anti-woman!” The response is likely going to be, “Oh yeah? Well, I guess that means ‘pro-choice’ should really be ‘anti-life,’ or ‘pro-death.'” Demagogy begets demagogy.
And then what about the women who are anti-abortion? Are they anti-themselves? Self-hating? And what if you’ve come to the conclusion — completely unwarranted in Wolf-world, I’m sure, but bear with me — that liberal solutions on health care, education, gun control and the environment may not (gasp!) actually be the summum bonum of public policy? I know, some people actually disagree with Wolf for reasons other than they’re evil white cis male plutocrats. This will no doubt come as a shock to her and her cohort of writers, the same way the outcome of the 2016 election did.
I admit it takes a lot to get taken off the air at Netflix, particularly if your show is a liberal cause célèbre, but I think Wolf definitely qualifies for the streaming boot — if not for the reasons you might think.
Yes, she’s a vulgarian who uses vulgarity as her sole means of getting attention. This is hardly a novelty in space year 2018. The thing is that she’s also an amateur polemicist who isn’t very good at crafting an argument. Every single one of her points is either self-defeating or demagogy.
She admits that unborn children are life, which means they ought to be protected under the law, conveniently overlooks how life is created (I’m going to assume, in the absence of evidence given during this rant, that as an adult she is at least familiar with the basic mechanics of the thing and how its creation can be prevented), yet intimates that if Roe is overturned there’s no other option besides women throwing themselves down the stairs. And if you’re not a liberal, you’re really anti-life and anti-women, not because of any real reason aside from the fact that those who don’t agree with policies she supports really want people to die.
Nowhere in this, incidentally, is an actual constitutional argument that a woman has a right to an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is what we were supposed to be talking about, right?
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.