"Where Choice Ends"

Let me be very clear about where I stand before anyone tries to put words in my mouth.

I vehemently oppose the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I believe women should have the absolute right to make deeply personal decisions about their own bodies, their own health, and their own pregnancies. And as a girl dad, that position isn’t some abstract political talking point to me. I have a daughter. I understand exactly what it means to want them to have autonomy over their bodies, their futures, and their lives.

But supporting a woman’s right to choose does not require me to surrender my ability to question where the boundaries should be.

And what is happening in Massachusetts?

For me, this is a bridge way, way, way too far.

I began my interest in politics all the way back in 1987, when I was a junior in college and worked as an assistant legislative aide to then-sitting Congressman Joe Moakley; a genuine statesman. I watched firsthand what political leadership was supposed to look like. I learned that having principles didn’t mean shutting your brain off. It meant listening, debating, compromising when necessary, and recognizing that reasonable people could disagree.

This is not the Democratic Party Joe Moakley was so proud of.

The Massachusetts Legislature has advanced the so-called Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, legislation designed to remove the state’s existing statutory restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks and instead allow such procedures based on the professional judgment of a physician. The bill’s sponsors and supporters say the goal is to ensure that patients facing complicated or devastating pregnancies aren’t forced to leave Massachusetts to obtain care.

I understand that argument.

I really do.

Pregnancy can be unpredictable. Medical emergencies happen. Women can receive devastating fetal diagnoses. Complications can arise that nobody anticipated. There are circumstances in which a woman’s health or life can be placed in grave danger.

But here’s where I start asking some very uncomfortable questions.

Because I don’t care what politically sanitized name you give a bill. I care about what the law actually does.

And this legislation would eliminate the existing 24-week statutory framework and replace those specific conditions with a standard based on a physician’s professional judgment.

That’s an enormous change.

And it deserves an enormous debate.

Not a rushed debate.

Not a partisan debate.

Not a debate where anyone who raises an ethical question is immediately branded anti-woman.

A real debate.

Because I can simultaneously believe that Roe v. Wade should not have been overturned and believe that abortion policy can go too far.

Those positions are not contradictory.

They’re called nuance.

And somewhere along the way, my party forgot that nuance existed.

Supporters of the Massachusetts legislation argue that the existing 24-week restrictions can interfere with physicians’ ability to provide care in complicated circumstances. The Massachusetts Medical Society, for example, supports abortion access at any point in pregnancy when clinically indicated and says the existing statutory framework can create uncertainty for doctors and patients.

Fine.

Then let’s have that conversation.

Let’s talk about those specific cases.

Let’s talk about the women who have been forced to travel.

Let’s talk about the doctors who believe the existing law gets in their way.

Let’s talk about fetal anomalies, maternal health, medical emergencies and the agonizing decisions families sometimes face.

But let’s also talk about boundaries.

Because apparently asking whether there should be meaningful boundaries has become politically radioactive.

And that is where I have a problem.

I am not suggesting that politicians should be sitting in an examination room making medical decisions for women.

Quite the opposite.

But neither should politicians, and neither should political activists, demand that the public simply accept every expansion of abortion law without asking legitimate questions about where the line should be drawn.

There has to be room for conscience.

There has to be room for ethics.

There has to be room for disagreement.

And there has to be room for someone like me; a lifelong Democrat who strongly supports reproductive rights, to say:

Just wait a damn minute.

The Massachusetts Medical Society says existing restrictions can create uncertainty for physicians. Advocates for the legislation say the law would remove what they consider medically unnecessary barriers. Opponents argue that eliminating the statutory restrictions goes too far.

That’s precisely why this debate should not be reduced to slogans.

Because when the only acceptable position is “anything less than unrestricted access makes you anti-choice,” we’ve stopped having a serious political discussion.

And when the opposing side responds with “any abortion is murder,” we’ve stopped having one there, too.

I’m not interested in either extreme.

I’ve spent too much of my life in politics to believe that complicated issues can be solved by screaming louder than the other guy.

What concerns me is something much larger than one piece of Massachusetts legislation.

It’s the growing ideological rigidity inside the Democratic Party.

I’ve watched my party move further and further away from the political center while convincing itself that everyone else is the one who moved.

That is dangerous.

Not just politically.

Culturally.

Because ordinary Americans are not extremists.

Most people don’t live on Instagram, TikTok or X.

Most people aren’t attending political rallies every weekend.

Most people aren’t reading legislative language over their morning coffee.

They’re raising their families. They’re working. They’re paying mortgages and rent. They’re trying to get their kids through school. They’re dealing with real-life problems.

And they expect their elected officials to recognize that some questions are complicated.

Especially questions involving life, death, medicine, pregnancy and the human body.

As a father, I want my daughter to have control over her body.

I want her to have access to competent medical care.

I want her protected from politicians who think they should have the final say over every intimate decision she makes.

But I also want her, and every other American, to live in a society where we can acknowledge that difficult moral questions exist without immediately turning one another into political enemies.

That’s what I’m fighting for here.

Not the criminalization of abortion.

Not a return to the days before Roe.

Not government intrusion into a woman’s doctor’s office.

And certainly not the overturning of reproductive rights.

I’m saying something far less radical:

Rights can coexist with responsibility. Freedom can coexist with boundaries. And compassion does not require us to abandon our conscience.

That’s the conversation Democrats should be having.

Instead, too many Democrats seem determined to prove just how far left they can go before ordinary Americans finally say they’ve had enough. Ordinary Americans like myself.

And that’s how political parties lose elections.

Not because their opponents suddenly become brilliant.

Because their own party stops listening.

I began my political life working for Joe Moakley. I saw what Democratic leadership looked like when the objective wasn’t ideological purity, but getting things done for people.

You could be progressive without being radical.

You could be compassionate without being absolutist.

You could defend women’s rights without pretending that every ethical question had magically disappeared.

And you could be a Democrat without checking your conscience at the door.

That’s the Democratic Party I remember.

That’s the Democratic Party I used to believe in.

And when it comes to this Massachusetts law, I don’t care how many political consultants tell me I, and others, that we are supposed to fall in line.

I’m not going to.

Because there are moments when politics has to take a back seat to principle.

And this is one of those moments.

____________________________________________________________________________

Received this from a fan:

Since Cohen joined WABC: WABC 3.5 → 4.1 in the July Nielsen book.

The Apple Podcasts page for “When You Know You Know” currently displays 4.7/5 from about 1,920 ratings.

Nielsen’s July 2026 New York PPM results were released on August 10, and 77 WABC rose from a 3.5 share in June to a 4.1 share in July among persons 6+, Monday–Sunday, 6 a.m.–midnight. That is about a 17% month-over-month increase in audience share.

____________________________________________________________________________

MORE THAN 625,000 PEOPLE READ MY ARTICLES THIS WEEK ALONE.

SO, WHERE ARE YOU? I’LL ASK AGAIN…WHERE ARE YOU?

I AM ASKING EACH OF YOU TO RESTACK, LIKE AND SHARE.

IT’S REALLY THAT EASY.

HELP US TO REBUILD AND GROW OUR COMMUNITY!

Yeah, I know; you’re tired. This shit is exhausting.

Guess what? Me too.

But I’ve spent the last 8 years throwing punches in the dark so truth could get a little daylight. And now I’m asking you to step into the ring with me.

Because if you’re still reading this, you already get it:

This isn’t just a newsletter. It’s a rally cry. A war drum. A line in the sand.

We are not passive observers of the downfall. We are the resistance. We call out the liars. We drag corruption by the collar into the sunlight. We say the quiet parts out loud; and we don’t flinch.

But here’s the truth: I can’t do this solo. Not anymore.

The storm is already here. We are standing in it. And it’s wearing stars and stripes like camouflage, preaching “freedom” while it sells fascism at retail.

So let me ask you:

Are. You. In?

Because this is not a scroll-and-forget read. This is a living, breathing, fire-breathing movement; and movements don’t move unless you do.

We need to be louder than spin, tougher than propaganda, and impossible to gaslight.

That takes more than clicks. More than likes.

It takes skin in the game.

So if you believe truth matters; if you’re sick of the bullshit, if you’re ready to stop screaming into the algorithm and start pushing back with purpose, this is your next step.

HERE’S HOW YOU PUT YOUR FOOT ON THE GAS:

Become a paid subscriber. Fund fearless, unfiltered journalism that hits back.

Share this with the loudest people you know; the ones who never sit down and shut up.

Build the community. Amplify the message. Be the damn megaphone.

And yeah; Founding Members? The first 240 of you will get a signed, numbered, limited-edition Substack version of Revenge. That’s not just a collector’s item. That’s receipts. Proof you didn’t sit this one out.

But let’s be clear:

This isn’t about a book.

It’s about backbone.

It’s about calling out the gaslighters and refusing to be played.

It’s about locking arms and saying, “Not. On. Our. Watch.”

You want to make a difference?

Then make it; right now.

Because if we don’t fight for truth, no one will.

But if we fight together?

They can’t drown us out.

Let’s be so loud, they wish we were just angry tweets.

Let’s be unshakable.

Unignorable.

Un-fucking-breakable.

Let’s go!

Share