(Photo: Suzanne Tucker/Dreamstime)

The “nature rights” meme is becoming a very big thing in progressive circles — even proposed to be inserted in the U.S. Constitution by those on the left in California calling for a new Constitutional Convention (Cal Con Con) to amend our current charter. Here is their plank.

Whenever I bring up this increasing drive to grant “rights” to “nature” in articles or speeches, invariably someone will ask whether these radicals would also grant unborn humans the same “right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles” — typical language of nature-rights proposals — as they advocate for fungi, viruses, rivers, wolves, and forests, all of which would receive enforceable protections under “nature rights” proposals.

“What do you think?” I always reply rhetorically.

Now, an article about the push to include “nature rights” in the Constitution by Rowan Walwrath, published by Mother Jones, hits on that very point:

Cal Con Con 2.0 contains a proposal to “render it illegal to terminate life’s ability to renew itself, in perpetuity.” When I point out that this could be interpreted as a ban on abortion, [Clare] Hedin [co-founder of the group California Constitutional Convention] was aghast. Cal Con Con is pro-choice, she says—so that language will have to change.

And there you have it, a right to life for fungi but not unborn babies.

Do not expect logic or consistency from nature-rights activists. They bake their crackpot agendas with the flour of pure emotion, adding spoonfuls of anti-humanism to leaven the cake.