The image above represents something very important to me and I’m sure to most working people. For the first time since about 2000 I have no credit card debt. I paid off my last outstanding credit card in February and felt so ecstatic I almost had an orgasm! Key word – “almost”. But it’s still a great feeling. Credit card debt has been one of my vices – along with alcohol and road rage. Then again credit card debt has been the vice of many Americans. Currently Americans hold approximately USD 1.13 trillion in credit card debt; an expense that worsened with the 2008 economic downturn and even more so with the COVID-19 pandemic. (Ironically a Republican was president of the United States at the start of each fiasco, which may or may not factor into it – but that’s a different matter.)
I remember paying off a massive amount of credit card debt in 1998, along with the truck loan I had at the time. And I was able to stay debt free until I lost my job at a bank in 2001. Odd how those two things often coincide, isn’t it?
I always used to tell myself I just needed to earn more money. I struggled constantly when I worked for that bank and I kept saying I should return to college and earn a degree. I finally did that in 2007. But after graduating in December 2008, the engineering company I was working for then couldn’t afford much in the way of salary increases because of – wait for it – the sudden economic downturn. Damn! Then I got laid off in the fall of 2010 and struggled somewhat as I tried to make my freelance technical writing career flourish.
But by then, I’d learned an even more important lesson: you don’t always solve money problems with money. Indeed some people earn six and seven figure annual salaries and are always in debt. It’s true, for the most part, that middle class incomes have shrunk considerably since the late 1970s; that is, in relation to the overall cost of living. A few years ago economic statisticians finally confirmed what the rest of us lowly working class drones already knew – “trickle down” economics doesn’t work! It never has and it never will. Yet conservative politicians keep pushing that theory onto the masses, and many people keep falling for it. That’s why I say my brain is too big to be conservative – with all due respect to my conservative friends and relatives.
In high school I was forced to take algebra and geometry and later wondered what purpose either discipline served. Other than knowing the shortest distance between two objects is a straight line, I feel that the ability to balance a checkbook and figure out percentages (so you know how much to tip the bartender) are the only truly essential math. Budgeting should be included. It’s good to know how long a light year is, but it’s more important to realize that it’s not worth having a savings account if you have more in credit card debt. Two plus two is so hard for some folks to figure out.
Regardless I’m glad I don’t have to wait for that zombie apocalypse to wipe out my credit card debt. Reality is often better.
The story of Henrietta Lacks is one of the most compelling I’ve ever encountered. It’s also one of the most tragic and upsetting. Lacks was an African-American resident of Baltimore when she developed cervical cancer in the early 1950s. While seeking treatment in the racially segregated ward at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital, doctors removed a sample of her cancer cells without her knowledge or permission and sent them to Dr. George Gey, prominent cancer and virus researcher at the time. In 1951, it was still perfectly legal to extract cancer cells and engage in other medical procedures without the patient’s consent or knowledge. In those early days of oncology research, Gey had been looking for cancer cells that would survive for any extended period. None had – until he obtained those belonging to Lacks. Whereas other cells would die as soon as he obtained them, Lacks’ cells doubled every 20 to 24 hours. This replication would eventually lead to a myriad of solutions and treatments in various medical fields.
Nicknamed “HeLa” (from the first two letters of Henrietta’s first and last names), the cells have been used to study the effects of toxins, drugs, hormones and viruses on cancer cells without actually experimenting on humans. “HeLa” cells were even critical to the development of the polio and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as continuing oncological research. Meanwhile, Lacks passed away quietly on October 1, 1951 at the age of 31, leaving behind her husband and children and was buried in an unmarked grave.
Johns Hopkins never sold or benefited financially from the usage of the “HeLa” cell line, but it did offer them freely for scientific research. The Lacks family certainly never benefited financially from this research – and Henrietta didn’t receive any recognition for her “contribution”.
Until recently.
Rebecca Skloot’s 2010 book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” brought much-needed attention to the case. Henrietta’s daughter, Deborah, wondered aloud if the doctors at Johns Hopkins had killed her mother to harvest those valuable cells. Had they even gone so far to clone her in some fashion? Considering that Henrietta was an impoverished Black woman in 1950s America, such hypotheses aren’t beyond the realm of possibility.
“Indeed, a great portion of early American medical research is founded upon nonconsensual experimentation upon systemically oppressed people,” Lacks family attorneys declared in their initial suit.
I have to note that Thermo Fisher had demanded the lawsuit be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. But Lacks family attorneys asserted that Thermo Fisher continues to benefit.
Here’s another curiosity. Ronald Lacks, one of Henrietta’s grandsons, self-published a book in 2020 about his grandmother’s case; hoping to bring further attention and possibly generate some revenue for his family. That same year Thermo Fisher CEO Marc Casper received a compensation package over $26 million.
No amount of money can ever compensate for the mistreatment of vulnerable populations. Denying that such wrongdoing occurred in the first place certainly doesn’t alleviate matters. This is what we’ve seen here in the U.S. with the relentless conservative denial of the brutal realities of European colonialism and Black slavery and the vicious legacies they spawned.
As a society, however, we can make some amends by acknowledging what happened and how bad it was. I feel Henrietta Lacks has ultimately been vindicated with her story now being told and a medical building that will bear her name.
And that kind of recognition means just about everything.
Recently the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report on a surprising, yet intriguing subject: loneliness. According to various studies and surveys, isolation and a lack of social connectivity has become epidemic. The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated what was already problematic for millions of Americans.
“Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation has been an underappreciated public health crisis that has harmed individual and societal health,” declared U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy. “Our relationships are a source of healing and well-being hiding in plain sight – one that can help us live healthier, more fulfilled, and more productive lives. Given the significant health consequences of loneliness and isolation, we must prioritize building social connection the same way we have prioritized other critical public health issues such as tobacco, obesity, and substance use disorders. Together, we can build a country that’s healthier, more resilient, less lonely, and more connected.”
The physical health consequences of poor or insufficient connections are dire. They include a 29% increased risk of heart disease; a 32% increased risk of stroke; and a 50% increased risk of developing dementia for older adults. Lack of social connections is estimated to increase the risk of premature death by more than 60%.
In addition to our physical health, loneliness and isolation contribute substantially to mental health challenges. In adults, the risk of developing depression among people who report feeling lonely often is more than double that of people who rarely or never feel lonely. Loneliness and social isolation in childhood increase the risk of depression and anxiety both immediately and well into the future. And with an estimated one in five adults living with a mental illness in the U.S., addressing loneliness and isolation has become critical in fully addressing the mental health crisis in America.
For better or worse, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the loneliness dilemma. It also seems to have amplified it. As businesses either switched to remote work or shut down altogether, people found themselves isolated in the name of good health. I think much of this was foretold by the obsession with social media in the preceding two decades; where people would establish cyber relationships and call each other “friends”.
As an only child and a confirmed introvert, I’ve dealt with loneliness my entire life. Sometimes I really do get lonely; other times I’m just alone. I’ve always been a loner – something my parents never seemed to understand – and I’ve rarely done well in groups. I get bored easily and quickly grow tired of dealing with people’s attitudes and personality quirks. I put up with a lot of people’s disrespectful behavior towards me most of my life, which is the primary reason I don’t consider myself a people person.
But I have to admit I do get lonely sometimes. I’m glad my parents had each other and me (and even my dog, Wolfgang to some extent) as they aged. One of my uncles lives alone in a dingy apartment with a cat. (An older cat died a few months ago, which devastated him.) He can’t drive anymore, so he either takes a bus or has someone transport him somewhere. I’ve taken him to a variety of doctor appointments over the past few years and grocery shopping almost every weekend for months now. His stepdaughter lives closer, but she has her own health problems.
I have an aunt who also lives alone. Her son, like me, is an only child, but he’s married and resides several miles from his mother. She’s fortunate, though, in that a neighbor has access to her house and keeps an eye on her. My aunt frightened me a few years ago, when she recounted how she fell in the bathroom one night and had to drag herself into her bedroom. It took her hours just to get there. But she was able to call her neighbor who contacted the fire department. I stay in touch with my uncle and aunt, as well as other relatives and friends – even if it’s just via text message.
I only know a few of my neighbors and have little contact with most relatives. I’ve never been married and I never had children, so I don’t know how life will be for me if I grow much older. Loneliness will be just one factor in my later life.
Some years ago a friend expressed concern that I was becoming a hermit. “Why should I go out?” I responded. I lived with my parents, so I certainly couldn’t bring anyone home. Then again, I hadn’t brought anyone home who I didn’t know since before the turn of the century.
A close friend keeps urging me to get a dog, as he did a couple of years ago. Aside from two household plants that languish nondescriptly on a kitchen counter, I’m the only living being in this house. (That doesn’t include the occasional insect that invades my quiet abode.) I’d love to get a dog, but I’m just not in the right situation now to get one.
Dr. Murthy has established a six-point plan to help the U.S. deal with its loneliness epidemic:
Strengthen Social Infrastructure: Connections are not just influenced by individual interactions, but by the physical elements of a community (parks, libraries, playgrounds) and the programs and policies in place. To strengthen social infrastructure, communities must design environments that promote connection, establish and scale community connection programs, and invest in institutions that bring people together.
Enact Pro-Connection Public Policies: National, state, local, and tribal governments play a role in establishing policies like accessible public transportation or paid family leave that can support and enable more connection among a community or a family.
Mobilize the Health Sector: Because loneliness and isolation are risk factors for several major health conditions (including heart disease, dementia, depression) as well as for premature death, health care providers are well-positioned to assess patients for risk of loneliness and intervene.
Reform Digital Environments: We must critically evaluate our relationship with technology and ensure that how we interact digitally does not detract from meaningful and healing connection with others.
Deepen Our Knowledge: A more robust research agenda, beyond the evidence outlined in the advisory, must be established to further our understanding of the causes and consequences of social disconnection, populations at risk, and the effectiveness of efforts to boost connection.
Cultivate a Culture of Connection: The informal practices of everyday life (the norms and culture of how we engage one another) significantly influence the relationships we have in our lives. We cannot be successful in the other pillars without a culture of connection.
All of this is easier said than done, and every plan looks good on paper. But I know something has to be done, if the nation’s overall health is to improve. I only have a small collection of friends, but that’s all I personally need. As with most everything else, it’s quality, not quantity, that matters. And quality of life is always important.
Last November, for my 59th birthday, I met a long-time friend, Preston*, at my gym. For years I made it a habit to visit my gym on my birthday. Even though I’ve changed gyms over the years, I hadn’t been to a gym on my birthday since 2019. So this was a refreshing change. Preston had turned 55 the previous July and – as we conversed about life and related topics – the subject of retirement arose. Like me (and millions of others across the globe), Preston has worked most of his adult life. He did what’s expected of so many people – especially men – in our society: he attended college, found a good job, got married and had kids. His wife went on maternity leave shortly before giving birth to their daughter some two decades ago and never returned to work. Thus, Preston – like millions of men – continued working.
Prior to meeting at my gym last November he’d said something that surprised me, yet to which I could relate. “I’m tired of working so hard.”
It was ironic because the same feelings had been rumbling around in my mind over the previous months. An uncle told me he’d retired in 2002 at the age of 62 simply because he was tired of working. Even though he didn’t get the most out of his Social Security, he simply had become weary of the labor grind and therefore, was willing to take the risk of living a more modest life.
My father had essentially been forced to retire at 62 in 1995, but my mother managed to retire at 70 in 2003. My folks managed to make the most of their golden years – my father dived full-time into genealogical research, and my mother spent hours reading and doing crossword puzzles. They didn’t travel or go out dancing; they didn’t join any clubs to make a bevy of new friends. They spent their remaining time on Earth living simply and quietly.
Whenever it’s my turn to retire, I’m certain I’ll spend my time doing what I love to do: reading and writing. I’d love to travel, but that’s still a dream.
Right now I’m trying desperately to find a job within my chosen profession – technical writing – but I’m not having much luck. Since the first of this year I have literally applied to more than 100 jobs. If I actually receive a response, it’s usually a no or the position has been closed. And even those are rare. In the state of Texas, the unemployment rate is roughly 4%, lower than most anywhere else in the country. I’m starting to get the impression my age is a factor. A friend tells me I’m just being paranoid, but I know age discrimination – though illegal – is a reality in the American work force.
But right now the U.S. government is mired in an impasse over the debt limit. As usual it’s a battle between political ideologies, and neither side seems willing to concede. And, as usual, average Americans like The Chief are caught in the mud fight.
I don’t need a palatial beachfront estate with a 6-car garage to be happy. I don’t need billions in stock or hard cash to feel content. I just need to make a basic and decent living. My freelance writing fell flat after the COVID-19 pandemic and hasn’t recovered. A friend suggested I try to be an Uber driver, but I don’t have a 4-door vehicle and I’m bad at directions. I think I’m too old for porn, so I won’t even try – again. Yet I’m not too proud to work and don’t like being idle anyway.
Yet I have to concede I’m tired. Decades ago I recall my father saying he no longer really cared for being praised for his work; he wanted to be rewarded monetarily. The bank where I used to work often gave out perfect attendance awards and various other accolades that ultimately weren’t worth the paper on which they were printed. Now I know what my father meant.
Orbán also appeared to make light of the Nazi Holocaust while discussing plans to reduce natural-gas demand in Europe: “I do not see how it will be enforced – although, as I understand it, the past shows us German know-how on that.”
“You degenerate pagans and atheists and non-believers went way too far with the COVID nonsense, with shutting down our churches and forcing our kids to be masked, and forcing us to get vaccinated with some mystery goop in order to keep our jobs and provide for our families. You pushed us too far, and now we’re going to take dominion of this country, of our culture, of news, of entertainment, of technology, of education, of everything for the glory of Jesus Christ, our king. It’s just that simple.”
Trump’s Bedminster Club is just across the Hudson River from Manhattan. Several families of 9/11 victims have expressed outrage over the event. Of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia.
Feeling anxious or upset? A number of things exist to help you out – reading, walking, meditation, exercise. But have you ever thought of visiting a museum to ease that apprehension? Turns out that patronizing a museum might be one avenue of relief for anguished souls. A University of Pennsylvaniastudy entitled “Art Museums as Institutions for Human Flourishing” published in the Journal of Positive Psychology indicates as much.
The relatively new field of “positive psychology” studies “the strengths that enable individuals and communities to thrive.” It draws on research from a variety of academic disciplines while examining how the arts and humanities affect the human condition.
“We believe our collaborative and interdisciplinary work is all the more vital at a time when so many individuals and communities lack the levels of well-being they need to thrive,” said James O. Pawelski of UPenn.
Pawelski and colleague Katherine Cotter had already planned to study the effects of museums on people’s mental health when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since so many museums were forced to shut down, the duo compiled and reviewed over 100 research articles and government and foundation reports.
They discovered that visiting a museum reduced stress levels, frequent visits decreased anxiety, and viewing figurative art lowered blood pressure. They also found that museum visits lowered the intensity of chronic pain, increased a person’s life span, and lessened the likelihood of being diagnosed with dementia. And those living with dementia saw mental and physical benefits as well: Spending time in a museum induced more dynamic stress responses, higher cognitive function, and improvements in the symptoms of depression.
Going to a museum also left elementary schoolers feeling “restored” and even made medical residents feel less emotionally exhausted.
To most artists, this shouldn’t be surprising. Writers, painters, musicians and the like have always had the ability to unite people when politicians couldn’t. And now, our desires to make people’s lives better has been vindicated once again.
Abortion-rights and anti-abortion demonstrators gather outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, June 24, 2022. The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years, a decision by its conservative majority to overturn the court’s landmark abortion cases. (AP Photo/Gemunu Amarasinghe)
It has been one dream of conservatives for decades: overturning Roe vs. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision guaranteed women the right to abortion, in accordance with the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Now that goal has been achieved: earlier today, June 24, the Court has overturned Roe; thus gutting nearly a half century of reproductive freedom for women in the U.S.
It’s a stunning move and it’s left abortion supporters shell-shocked. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of Americans support abortion to some extent. Six justices on the Supreme Court have decided they don’t like the concept of abortion, so no woman should have access to it and no one should help a woman burdened with a crisis pregnancy. It is the first time in U.S. history that a constitutional right has been granted and then rescinded.
Social and religious conservatives are ecstatic about this decision. Although the Roe decision startled many people in 1973, the ruling didn’t really become an issue until the 1980s; when the evangelical Christian movement started to make its intrusive presence known. They saw the election of Ronald Reagan as assurance that abortion would be outlawed in the U.S.
At least 26 states were ready to outlaw abortion under most circumstances, should Roe be overturned. Now that it has, they are moving towards the annihilation. Last year the legislature in my home state of Texas passed the so-called “Heartbeat Act”, which bans abortion after 6 weeks (before many women know they’re pregnant) and only allows it in cases where the mother’s life is endangered. That means rape and incest victims will be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Any woman (or girl) who obtains an abortion and/or anyone who assists in that procedure could face up to $10,000 in statutory damages and face prison time. Noticeably it doesn’t say anything about prosecuting men who rape women or girls.
The overturning of Roe perhaps will be one of Donald Trump’s greatest legacies, aside from his dismal handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. But it won’t so much be his legacy as it will be that of right-wing extremists – the people who loudly proclaim to cherish personal liberty and freedom, but in practice, mean it only for themselves. Everyone else’s personal liberty – that is, people who aren’t exactly like them – is somehow subjective.
Abortion opponents are now presenting – as they always have – what they consider viable solutions to the dilemma of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies; quick fixes that are ridiculously quaint and utopian. They recommend creating a society where every child comes into the world loved and respected; that women always have a safe and effective way to carry out their undesired pregnancies. It’s tantamount to beauty pageant contestants expressing their wish for the blind to see and the lame to walk. It’s wonderfully idealistic, yet extraordinarily delusional. Such answers to some of life’s most complex issues are typical of the conservative mindset: simple and unencumbered. That’s why I always say my brain is too big to be conservative.
In the 49 years since Roe was passed, it’s estimated that some 60 million abortions have taken place in the United States. Abortion adversaries groan that it means some 60 million children never got a chance to grow up and have fulfilling lives. But millions of children have come into the world under the best of circumstances and have never lived fulfilling lives. The future is always uncertain, and occasionally things go awry in families.
It’s also possible that those estimated 60 million children could have been subjected to abuse and neglect. Children who come into the world unwanted often end up being unloved. I have to wonder if abortion opponents are going to dish out any additional cash to help support all those children. It’s easy for them to lounge in their ivory towers – the way religious leaders often do – and bestow well wishes upon troubled souls. Good intentions don’t pay diaper and formula bills; they don’t provide housing and education; they don’t deal with the daily angst of raising children. They’re glossy words that lack substance, unless solid and concrete action is taken to make those lives better.
Liberals and moderates are already concerned that other Supreme Court decisions are at risk, such as Griswold and Lawrence. Even Brown and Loving may come under similar attack. As part of his decision to overturn Roe, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy and same-sex marriage respectively.
Remember, the original Roe decision developed under the auspices of the right to privacy and equal protection under the law. Those are essential and undeniable features of a truly democratic society. Stripping any particular group of basic human rights isn’t a sign of a moral culture, as many social conservatives would have us believe. It’s more emblematic of a totalitarian world; a universe where a handful of people have blessed themselves with the power to decide what is and what is not appropriate for everyone else.
If abortion opponents think this Dobbs decision will end abortion in the United States once and forever, they are mistaken. After the initial shock has worn off (which is already happening), people will begin to fight back and find ways around it. Whether right-wing extremists like it or not, abortion will happen. There will always be women who find themselves in very difficult situations and feel they must end a pregnancy. It’s been happening for centuries and it will continue happening, even though a band of self-righteous elitists demand otherwise.
Sen. Rand Paul kept interrupting Dr. Anthony Fauci over the veracity of COVID booster shots for children and teenagers and royalty payments to National Institutes of Health associates.
Many of the cases that arrive before the U.S. Supreme Court begin with individuals either trying right a wrong or make their own lives better. They rarely expect to launch a national movement. That was pretty much the case when Norma McCorvey found herself pregnant with her third child in 1969. An unemployed carnival worker living outside Dallas at the time, McCorvey apparently had led a rough life and had given up her first two children for adoption. She didn’t need – and couldn’t afford – to bring another child into the world. However, the state of Texas didn’t allow for abortions except to save the life of the mother. Even rape and incest victims couldn’t end their unwanted pregnancies. Like so many women in her situation, McCorvey was too poor to travel to another state where abortions were safe and legal. She even tried to obtain an illegal abortion, but again the cost was prohibitive. She sought legal help and ended up under the guidance of attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
In 1970, after McCorvey had given birth and given up the baby, Coffee and Weddington filed paper work challenging the Texas law and bestowed the name “Jane Roe” upon their client. They targeted then-Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. Wade had entered the national spotlight nearly a decade earlier when he prosecuted Jack Ruby for killing Lee Harvey Oswald who had been accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. (Wade would later come to light as a ruthless prosecutor who engaged in unscrupulous legal maneuvers to ensure criminal prosecutions, no matter the cost and despite evidence to the contrary.)
After McCorvey’s suit was filed, a Texas district court ruled the state’s abortion ban violated the constitutional right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Wade persisted, however, and vowed to prosecute any doctor who performed what he deemed unnecessary abortions in the state. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court and, in a 7-2 ruling on January 22, 1973, abortion was fully legalized in the United States.
That was pretty much the end of the issue until the 1980s, when right-wing religious leaders began stoking the fires of anti-abortion rhetoric. It accompanied the presidency of Ronald Reagan who openly stated he wished for a return to an America before the 1960s. That should say enough about his bigoted state of mind, but it aligned with a growing hostility towards progressive ideology and civil rights legislation.
Earlier this week the unexpected news arrived that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe vs. Wade by the end of its current term in June. We wouldn’t know anything about this if it wasn’t for the leak of a draft opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito who declares the Roe decision “egregiously wrong” in terms of constitutional practicality. Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed the veracity of the statement, but has joined many others in condemning the leak.
For many of us the leak isn’t the main concern. It’s what it says. There is now a very real possibility that nearly a half century of protection for that part of women’s overall health care could end because a handful of conservative extremists on the High Court want to inject their personal views into it.
For their like-minded ilk in the American public, the overturning of Roe marks the end of a long-fought battle in their alleged “pro-life” agenda; a perverted early Mother’s Day gift. It doesn’t matter that a majority of Americans don’t want to see a complete ban on abortion. They’ve been working for this moment over the past four decades.
For liberals, though, this is a much more dire situation. While the current case that brought Roe back into the forefront is limited to just abortion, progressives see other seminal SCOTUS decisions in the judicial crosshairs. It really isn’t extraordinary to see such cases as Obergefell vs. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, reversed. Along with abortion, queer rights have been a target of far-right conservatives. But, if the Court sees fit to outlaw abortion at the national level (and leave it up to individual states), it could also reasonably overturn Griswold vs. Connecticut, which ruled that states could not deny birth control to married couples. Before that decision, married residents of Connecticut (and a few other states) couldn’t legally purchase birth control.
To some conservatives, abortion has become another form of birth control, which is not what contemporary feminists who jump-started the modern women’s movement desired. The latter group had always declared that abortion should be a woman’s last choice. But, with the overall concept of birth control in mind, is it possible a woman who has a tubal ligation could be criminally prosecuted? For that matter, could men who have vasectomies be subject to criminal jurisprudence? How about condoms or IUDs? Could those be outlawed?
Why stop with Roe? Aside from Obergefell and Griswold, could the Court target Loving vs. Virginia, the case that struck laws against interracial marriage? How about Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, which outlaws racial desegregation in schools?
Remember that, when Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Republicans in the Senate displayed their usual contempt and disdain for President Obama by refusing to hold hearings on his nominee to the Court, until after Donald Trump got into office. They stated that, since Scalia’s death occurred during an election year, the incoming president should select his replacement. Yet, upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, they rammed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett – a character straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
That social and religious conservatives want to dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies conflicts with the long-held American vision of individual freedom. Many of these people screamed at the thought mandatory mask-wearing or forced vaccinations at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; crying they should have autonomy over their own bodies. Really? What an original concept.
The reasons why an individual woman wants to end a pregnancy are myriad, but it is no one else’s business. As painful a decision as it may be, I’d rather see a woman end a pregnancy she doesn’t want than give birth to a child she doesn’t want. Children who come into the world unwanted are often unloved. That’s an awful fate for someone.
Regardless, pregnancy and birth are individual choices. No one – not the Supreme Court and not a politician – has the right to interfere with that.
Chief Writing Wolf 