The nanny state meets political correctness: pregnant women in bars

As a nanny state critic and libertarian, I believe government shouldn’t tell us what we can or can’t do, without a very good reason (mainly, harm to others).

UnknownSo you might think I welcomed a recent New York City Human Rights Commission ruling that pregnant women can’t be refused service in bars. The Commission said, “Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as a pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

Unknown-1“Pervasive in our society,” “pretext,” and, especially, “stereotype,” are dog-whistle words, signaling that we’re enlightened and we’re talking about improperly categorizing people and unjustified prejudice. But in this case, those are all irrelevant red herrings.

Because the idea that alcohol harms fetuses is not a “stereotype.” Unknown-2It’s scientific fact. Indeed, the City also requires bars to post warnings that alcohol can cause birth defects! Yet now it decrees women have a right to thusly endanger their babies. I’m all for freedom – but its first rule is that my right to swing my fist stops at your nose.

Or your fetus’s. Pro-choicers have spent decades trying to deny human status to fetuses. A political correctness the Human Rights Commission may be bending to. But to any reasonable person, in what circumstances a fetus merits protection is a highly fraught moral conundrum. And it’s pretty extreme to deem fetuses unworthy of any societal concern whatsoever.

Unknown-3Here the concern is real and proper: alcohol can damage a fetal brain. Surely the fist-at-nose test is met. Remember, this is not about abortion or the unborn, but about protecting children expected to be born. If you were born with fetal alcohol syndrome, you would rightly feel as though your nose had been punched. Indeed, all our noses are punched considering the loss to society (and expense) when someone is born unable to become a fully functioning and productive citizen. Protecting society and children against that is legitimate.

This might, at least arguably, have justified a nanny-state edict barring pregnant women from bars. But instead, the Wrong Way Corrigan Commission directed its nanny-state impulse in the opposite direction, at bartenders, disallowing them from exercising judgment and responsibility in deciding for themselves whether to serve mothers-to-be. The Commission chose protecting drinkers over protecting children.

images-1This seems especially bizarre and perverse given that bartenders have been held accountable for serving drunks who then drive and injure people. Victims have sued bartenders in such circumstances.

Should a fetal alcohol victim be able to sue the bartender who served his pregnant mother?

Or sue the City Human Rights Commission?

5 Responses to “The nanny state meets political correctness: pregnant women in bars”

  1. Lee Says:

    Bartenders are responsible for determinig pregnancy status? There are going to be some mightally offended / saddened overweight women and even some men.

    Perhaps if all bartenders had to have an MD or at least a nursing degree ….

  2. rationaloptimist Says:

    I never said they should be required to be responsible. Only that they should not be required to be irresponsible!

  3. Lee Says:

    Despite that it is often unappreciated, one is free to give advice, even to strangers. It is dangerous to give control to strangers, especially if they are unelected, non-credentialed, …. If our elected representatives want to nanny-law us (e.g., seat belts) then that is democracy. Concerned bartenders should lobby their representatives, give advice as they see fit, etc. but not take it upon themselves to control others.

  4. rationaloptimist Says:

    So . . . bartenders should advocate nanny laws to bar pregnant tippling? Seriously? All I’m saying is it’s stoopit to bar them from refusing to serve pregnant women. Seems mere common sense. Especially as they may be liable if they do serve.

  5. Paul Landsberg Says:

    There is another subtle political subtext in this case / result. I was reading an article (I wish I could remember more) where a state was requiring that the remains of an abortion had to be treated as human remains under law. That meant the hospital must make arrangements with crematoriums or the like.

    The not-so-subtle agenda of such a law is that if you build a thicket of laws that make abortions more painful, more complex, more time consuming, and, most importantly, treat the fetus as a human with full rights, you are within inches of completely reversing the current legality of abortions. The long ground game of abortion foes is to create this thicket, force obstacle after obstacle for abortion providers, and inject laws treating a fetus as a human. IMO this legal tiff was just another teensy attempt to create the legal environment where a woman does not have full control over her body, others have to decide for her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s