Did AOC ever mean it, Reproductive-tourism biz is – Latest News
Iconoclast: Did AOC Ever Mean It?
“With a laugh and a smile,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated “Woke 1 was crazy,” notes Carlos Lozada at The New York Times: She was “distancing herself, whether subtly or overtly, from what is known as wokeism” — however how a lot of it did she “truly believe at the time?” If she “did believe it, jettisoning it now should take something more than a sheepish grin.” If she didn’t, “yet declared it with such passion, with such pretensions to moral clarity,” she ought to “acknowledge the dissonance” and “explain the shift, not just explain it away.” What concepts about police abolition, trans ideology and white guilt does she “now regard as crazy or cringey or silly?” AOC has a proper to change her thoughts, however let her “explain how and why she’s moving on.”
Conservative: Reproductive-Tourism Biz Is Sick
“Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on birthright citizenship,” the United States ought to limit all varieties of reproductive tourism,” Emma Waters argues at The Hill. This biz sells human embryos, eggs and sperm, and — “thanks to birthright citizenship” — probably US passports. “Non-U.S. residents accounted for 59,246 assisted reproductive technology cycles between 2014 and 2022”; “China alone generated 19,718 cycles.” “The international clientele is buying the specific services the rest of the world restricts or bans” — whereas “reproductive tourism in the U.S. relies on these ethically fraught” practices. “A nation can take seriously its own infertility crisis without operating an open-borders bazaar in embryos, eggs, and passports for the clientele of the entire world.”
Centrists: Retailers Should Avoid Politics
While Target has “often loudly expressed its progressive values,” new CEO Michael Fiddelke “is leading a turnaround effort that has pushed shares upward,” cheers The Washington Post editorial board. Burned in culture-war battles over post-George Floyd controversies, trans-bathroom insurance policies and Pride Month merchandise, the Minneapolis-based retailer has realized that “there’s no pleasing everyone” — as now progressives fume, with the American Federation of Teachers urging “members not to buy school supplies from Target because it has “stayed silent on ICE’s occupation of its own hometown.” Fiddelke ought to stand firm: “Resisting union bullying would set a promising new precedent of selling goods based on the needs of customers, not the demands of whoever yells at the company the loudest.”
More From Post Editorial Board
Culture critic: Where DEI Goes Truly Wrong
Jason Arday’s story “saddens” Roland Fryer at The Wall Street Journal, as do these of Claudine Gay and Jayson Blair, as all “raise the same question”: Why “elite institutions,” so “eager for diversity,” are prepared to “take chances on people whose credentials wouldn’t otherwise get them in the door.” His “quarrel with DEI” isn’t concerning the “initial opportunity,” which he favors, as “what happens after”: The downside is when “potential is confused with accomplishment,” versus a colorblind strategy to evaluation. The “obligation” to “invest” in uncooked potential should be matched by “telling people the truth about their work.” Professors who assume they’re “being kind” by giving “gentle comments” to minority college students in reality “are withholding the one thing the writer needs.”
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our each day Post Opinion e-newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
Trade beat: Deploy Charm To Get a Deal, Don
Canada and America have been “on the cusp” of a “long awaited trade deal” when “defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory,” laments Jane Stannus at The Spectator. Hmm: Did Prime Minister Mark Carney “ever want a deal?” Just “four relatively small points of contention” emerged, and none appear a motive to finish talks. To keep energy, “Carney has cynically stoked fear of America” and President Trump; possibly Trump ought to “launch a charm offensive.” He “wants fair treatment for the US” but in addition for “Canada to free itself from the toils of China.” The reply could also be to start out “differentiating between the Davos darling who holds the reins” and “the many common-sense Canadians who see the urgent necessity” of a deal.
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
