Top executives want people to know they’re unhappy with restrictive abortion laws recently passed by a number of state legislatures. This uproar comes after many in the entertainment industry questioned their own investments in Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama. These business leaders affirm that the “right to abortion” is one of the most prominent social causes for the left side of the political aisle.
On Monday, an open letter appeared in the New York Times, signed by almost 200 CEOs, who all lament that efforts to protect the unborn are succeeding. The letter, entitled “Don’t Ban Equality,” also appears on a site bearing the same name. It reads in part:
Included among the signatories is Peter T. Grauer of Bloomberg LP, Jack Dorsey (of Twitter) representing Square, Inc., Matthew McCarthy of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., and Elie Seidman of Tinder.
The campaign, supposedly for equality, is a preposterous display of the exact opposite. But in many ways, it meets our expectations. It comes from the popular crowd, a large group that remains disinterested in truth and the basics of morality. Not only is their crusade against abortion restrictions flatly anti-life, but in an attempt to appear pro-woman, the reverse is shown.
Without full access to abortion, we’re told by these executives that women can’t “fully succeed in the workplace.” Are the demands of these companies such that a woman can’t be a mother and a successful employee? In order to meet career goals, must a female schedule her unborn child’s destruction? Talk about a toxic work environment.
It certainly seems that pregnancy is frowned upon by the many men (and women) who lent their name to this cause. As much as possible and where/when appropriate, being a working mother should be supported by employers. By stating that restricting abortion and allowing more births would cause women to fall short of their goals in the workplace, these executives are only highlighting their own sexism.
In addition, these CEOs have involuntarily admitted the absence of a legitimate, gender-based wage gap within their respective companies. If the burden of children is the main reason for workplace failure and the difference in earnings over the life of a career, then misogyny can be ruled out and personal choice is the sole factor in the equation.
Finally, the problem of latent, wage-related sexism is solved!
Unsurprisingly, some of these companies base a portion of their success in the actual ability to get an abortion. This couldn’t be more evident than with Tinder whose CEO, Elie Seidman, added his name to the letter. One can’t help but think that the longevity of the dating/hookup app is made more secure if abortion is an option for those who find themselves with more than they bargained for after swiping right. For some, abortion may be the avenue that makes it possible for them to log on yet again. No wonder Seidman is nervous.
As usual, the pro-abortion left can’t make a coherent, ethical argument as to why restrictive abortion laws are bad for women and the broader idea of equality. True equality would never seek to deny the most basic right, the right to life, to unborn individuals in the United States. These executives make it clear they don’t believe women are capable of starting a family and achieving success in a corporate environment. By rebuking politicians for life-affirming legislation, and telling women it’s impossible to do well without abortion, these CEOs confirm that their singular focus is profit, not people.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.
