creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Connie Schultz icon
Connie Schultz
23 May 2012
Catholic Leaders Must Dial Down the Rhetoric

As a non-Catholic, I wrestled with an internal conflict over the birth control battle of the bishops. Part of … Read More.

16 May 2012
Dear Young Mothers: Ignore Time Magazine

In February 1989, I ended a phone interview for a magazine story I was writing and looked up to find my 21-month-… Read More.

9 May 2012
Finally, the President Says 'I Do'

This was going to be a different kind of column. My friend Jackie, through a mutual contact, arranged for me … Read More.

He Supports a Woman's Right to Privacy -- Just This Once

Share Comment

Last Tuesday, Republican Ohio state Rep. Robert Mecklenborg — a self-described "Catholic boy from the west side of Cincinnati" — stood on the floor of the Ohio House of Representatives to champion the most radical anti-abortion legislation in the country.

"We marvel, don't we?" he said, before voting for the "heartbeat bill." "We marvel at the march of the penguins as they go to propagate their species under very, very difficult odds and conditions. We marvel at the leaping salmon as they return to their ancestral homes."

He also marveled over the mating habits of loggerhead turtles.

You're not alone if you don't quite see the parallel of wildlife to women's lives.

Not once have I ever looked at a woman of reproductive age — including our three daughters and daughter-in-law — and thought: Why, you're no different from fish, birds or reptiles.

I can see, however, how linking women's sex lives to images of prancing penguins makes it easier for some men to pretend we aren't really human. Once you've convinced yourself that we women only recently shed our scales and fins and started walking upright, you can give yourself permission to break all kinds of rules.

Which brings us to a recent development in the life of Mecklenborg.

In a way, this isn't exactly breaking news. The events in question happened more than two months ago. However, blogs and news outlets — and reportedly the Republican leadership in the Ohio House — found out only last Wednesday.

That's exactly one day after Mecklenborg's feisty critters speech.

On Saturday, April 23 — in the wee hours of the morning after Good Friday — an Indiana state trooper pulled over Mecklenborg, who was driving with temporary Kentucky license plates. The officer stated in his report that he had stopped Mecklenborg for a burned-out headlight but then suspected Mecklenborg was intoxicated after he smelled alcohol and noticed the state rep's "glossy, bloodshot eyes."

Mecklenborg refused a chemical test and then failed three field sobriety tests.

After a blood test, he was charged with drunken driving. The 59-year-old married father of three also tested positive for Viagra.

Mecklenborg was not alone that evening. His passenger was a 26-year-old woman, who is neither his wife nor one of his children.

In his incident report, the police officer noted that Mecklenborg's inebriated state "endangered a person."

By "person," we can assume he meant a human life.

Mecklenborg pleaded not guilty. His court date is set for later this month.

He did not return my calls to his government or law offices, but he did offer an explanation, sort of, to WLWT-TV in Cincinnati on Thursday:

"Being human, I have made a mistake, and this has caused great hurt to my family, and I'm deeply sorry for that. I've served tirelessly and well my constituents, but I want to apologize to them, as well. While the discovery process in this case goes on, I am entitled to the same presumption of innocence as any other citizen."

When asked about his young passenger, Mecklenborg said, "I understand the interest in the DUI part, I guess, but the rest is a personal matter."

A personal matter?

Perhaps this is Mecklenborg's eureka moment.

Pro-choice Americans always have argued that a woman's sex life is a personal matter and that any decisions involving her body are her business. We understand only too well why Mecklenborg would rather we stop asking questions about his private life.

Unfortunately for Mecklenborg, he is an elected official who has hinged his political ambitions on making the private lives of women his business. Questions loom.

Why was Mecklenborg with this young woman? How did he meet her? Where did he meet her? Where was he going with her?

Why was he driving a car with Kentucky plates in the state of Indiana?

Why didn't the news of his arrest come straight from him — and right away instead of more than two months later?

It's a personal matter, he said.

We marvel, don't we?

We marvel at a man willing to pause for a personal exception in his march over the rights of so many other women of reproductive age.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and an essayist for Parade magazine. To find out more about Connie Schultz (cschultz@plaind.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Republican Ohio state Rep. Robert Mecklenborg deserves a fair trial on the charges and if convicted deserves the punishment that he will receive. I assume that his punishment will be the same as any other citizen would receive.
His position should give him no advantages or cause him to be disadvantaged.

The matter of his use of his position to strike at the rights females to have the freedoms and rights that he enjoys as a male is a different matter. I do not believe that he should advocate that females should have less freedom to make life choices than he does. I certainly do not believe that he should retain his political office and power when he displays such a lack of responsibility in making choices for himself, his family, and the woman in his car when he was arrested.
Comment: #1
Posted by: JRGrissomCA
Sat Jul 2, 2011 10:54 PM
The sad part of this article is that Susan refuses to recognize that the "reproductive rights" she is describing is the killing of a separate human being in the womb.
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Sun Jul 3, 2011 6:12 AM
Look, I'm in favor of legal abortion. But you're committing the basic rhetorical fallacy of begging the question -- your point only stands up if we accept, without question, the premise that aborton rights = privacy rights.

It's not the right to personal privacy we're asking; it's the right to kill a fetus. That's what abortion is: getting rid of an unwanted fetus. I can justify killing a fetus because, up until a certain point in its development, it's just not complex enough to be considered a person. For instance, a five-week fetus is essentially a fish.

If you pretend it's a different issue, if you refuse to address that central point, you will never get anywhere. If you believe in a woman's right to get an abortion, don't hide behind euphemisms and the straw man "privacy" argument. State, as I do: it's okay to kill a fetus in the first trimester. I really get tired of this weak "privacy" stuff.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Mon Jul 4, 2011 3:37 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Connie Schultz
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

21 Jul 2010 Honoring the Fallen, One Facebook Post at a Time

18 Oct 2009 Airing Our Clean Laundry

13 Nov 2007 A Few Tips About Tipping