[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

Mary Anne Franks describes herself as a law professor, author, media commentator and activist.

She’s best known for her work to stop “nonconsensual pornography,” better known as revenge porn, and for a book titled “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”

The Boston Globe turned to Franks and other liberal activists for a “Globe Ideas” series, which the newspaper titled: “Editing the Constitution.”

“The Constitution is undergoing massive changes in the Supreme Court. It’s time to put the founding document in the hands of the people,” the newspaper explained.

Mary Anne Franks


Franks was the perfect choice for the Globe’s farcical hit piece, since she can always be counted on to bash anyone with a “devotion to guns.” As laughable as it sounds, Franks was assigned by the newspaper to “Redo the first two amendments,” which she did.

The Second Amendment, she wrote, has an “idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus” on militias and arms, which the good professor says “degrades the concept of self-defense.”

“The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death than to avoid it,” Franks wrote. “Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety.”

Here’s how Franks would change the Second Amendment, and you’ll notice that her edited version now includes abortion rights:

“All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole,” she wrote.

Abdallah Fayyad, who wrote the introduction for the series, explained that the newspaper believes the Constitution “needs an update.”

“That’s why Globe Ideas has put together this project, in which we asked legal experts, advocates, journalists, and members of the next generation what changes they’d make to the Constitution if they could,” Fayyad wrote. “It’s a thought experiment to some extent, but it’s also meant to get conversations started about how the Constitution can be the living document it was intended to be.”

In my humble opinion, the Constitution is perfect the way it is. It needs no updating. The Boston Globe editors and activists involved in this series are the ones who need updating, since they have clearly lost their collective minds. If I were them, I’d start updating my ‎résumé most ricky-tik.