New York Times Bizarrely Celebrates Men Getting Vasectomies After Roe v. Wade Decision
A recent story out from The New York Times begins its headline with "Snip Snip Hooray."
It gets worse from there.
The Times spends several paragraphs celebrating an apparent increase in young men getting vasectomies after the Roe v. Wade decision was officially announced.
Not only is this offensive, but the story accidentally highlights the incomprehensible stupidity of the men who rushed off to prevent future children.
The first person featured, a 28-year old comedian named Mike Pridgen who shared his experience on video -- presumably to get attention on the internet -- achieved exactly that:
"That video has now been viewed more than two million times and the response has been overwhelmingly positive," he said.
The comments, which were mostly from women, were celebratory and encouraging. They thanked him for “sharing his journey” and for "encouraging other men to do the same."
While getting a vasectomy for likes on the internet is dumb enough, apparently multiple urologists said they were seeing an increase in men who want to ensure they don't have children. Not to mention there has been an increase in Google search results after the Roe v. Wade decision:
"In interviews with The New York Times, 10 urologists across the United States said they have seen a notable uptick in bookings for the procedure this summer — especially among younger, child-free men, whose resolve to not reproduce appears to have sharpened in the face of a precarious economy, worsening climate change, and a more restrictive family planning landscape. The weekend after the Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn Roe v. Wade, Google reported that searches for “vasectomy” and “are vasectomies reversible?” surged."
There are so many laughable aspects to this paragraph it's hard to know where to start, but citing "worsening climate change" as a reason not to have children might be one of the single dumbest things published in The New York Times, and that is a remarkably high bar to clear.
Apparently "climate change" is now the new shorthand for media outlets desperate to avoid blaming the actual reasons for major nationwide problems.
Beyond that absurdity, the story says that urologists are overwhelmingly concentrated in urban areas. Except the vast majority of urban areas across the country are in states that will continue to allow abortion.
How stupid do you have to be in order to be sitting at your home in Los Angeles or Chicago Googling vasectomies due to a "more restrictive family planning landscape?"
Nothing about abortion laws in those areas will be changing. Men in those cities will be just as able to use abortion as birth control or responsibility avoidance as they were before.
On top of this bewildering ignorance, the celebratory tone of the piece might be most offensive part.
Why is it a positive development for people to want to avoid having children? Why would this be good news that deserves applause?
The Times simply does not agree with the Roe v. Wade decision and is looking for any and all reasons as to why their outrage is justified.
Apparently, that search sank low enough to gleefully cheering on men seeking to get a procedure they'll almost certainly regret once they realize that "worsening climate change" is a pathetic, laughable reason not to have kids.