Tag Archives: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

March 29, 2024 · 8:42 PM

No Tax Latex

It’s been nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed abortion and left it up to individual states to decide whether or not women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies.  The Dobbs decision sent proverbial shock waves throughout the American conscience.  For the first time in modern judicial history, a fundamental right was snatched away by a band of elitists who – like most extremists – feel they know what’s best for everyone else.

Now another abortion-related issue has come before the Court: whether mifepristone is legal or not.  Basically this medication induces abortion without an individual having to visit a clinic.  Recently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded approval of the drug.  That incited the ire of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a conservative anti-abortion group that forced the matter onto the plate of the High Court.  If the Dobbs decision is any precedent, things don’t look good for mifepristone.

I might have one solution to the overall problem of unwanted pregnancies: tax-free condoms.  Even before I entered my teens, my father put the fear of the Almighty into my brain – never trust a girl when she says she’s on birth control.  Of course, women should never trust a man when he says she can quit her job because he’ll make her his queen, but that’s a different dilemma.

To many men wearing condoms is comparative to showering while wearing a raincoat.  (Points to anyone who has actually heard that firsthand.)  But, as we saw with the AIDS epidemic, condoms are a safeguard.  Personally I’m tired of hearing men say that birth control is a woman’s responsibility.  A real man takes charge of his own birth control. 

Unexpected pregnancies present more than a few challenges to an individual female.  Children who come into the world unplanned and unwanted often end up being unloved; thus, they often become society’s problem.  Two decades ago economists Steve Levitt and John Donohue hypothesized that a reduction in crime in the 1990s was one effect of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.  A strong economy and a greater presence of law enforcement, especially in major metropolitan areas, were also counted as dominating factors.  But it was the abortion connection that prompted the most controversy – and greatest outrage.  Liberals opined that abortion provided women with greater autonomy over their own health care, while conservatives pointed to a reversal of liberal social policies beginning in the 1980s as the primary reason for a reduction in criminal behavior.  Either of these theories bears some truth.

Another interesting result of the Dobbs decision is the sudden rise in vasectomies here in the U.S.  Perhaps some men are finally getting the hint that they also have reproductive choices.  Institutes from the Cleveland Clinic to Planned Parenthood are noting an increase in vasectomies.  It’s both logical and practical.

But I still think eliminating taxes on condoms will provoke younger and/or single men to buy and use them.  As of now, I don’t know of any state that maintains this practice, but I still feel it would be worth the trouble.  States will garner tax revenue on a slew of other products anyway.  I’m fully aware condoms are not a panacea to solve unwanted pregnancies; no form of birth control outside of abstinence is.  But, just as with the foolishness of “Just Say No”, abstinence only blanket ideology isn’t reasonable either.  Children cost money – as any parent can tell us.  They should be a blessing, not a burden.

5 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 28, 2023 · 5:44 PM

X Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court commenced its latest term October 2, and after the previous two years of drama and shocking decisions, the American populace is wondering what’s next.  Among the upcoming decisions:

Lindke v. Freed – A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.

Murray v. UBS Securities LLC – A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.

Rudisill v. McDonough – A case in which the Court will decide whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

United States v. Rahimi – A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.  (Both domestic violence experts and gun rights supporters are closely watching this particular case.)

Vidal v. Elster – A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

The 2022 Dobbs decision upended the long-standing belief the High Court always moves the nation forward.  It wasn’t akin to the 1954 Brown decision, which reversed the 1896 Plessy ruling.  It was such a regressive move that even legal scholars remain stunned.  Afterwards, Justice Clarence Thomas – the longest-serving member of the Court and a conservative darling – declared the Dobbs decision opened the possibility for reversals of other cases, such as Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage.  Curiously he said nothing of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that legalized interracial marriage.  (Thomas is currently married to a White chick.)

As upsetting as the Dobbs decision was, I know the case that will galvanize Americans; that is, the decision that – if reversed – will incite a revolution.  It is the one case that will drive Americans into the voting booth more than abortion, education, guns, queers or voting itself – Miller v. California, the 1972 decision that technically legalized pornography.  (Also see United States v. Reidel.) Yes, among all the sentient issues plaguing our modern society, denying people the right to view sexual activity will culminate in a revolution that could rival the collapse of the Roman Empire.  In the mid-1980s, President Ronald Reagan – perhaps still angry about the Miller decision – launched a war on pornography.  His then-Attorney General, Edwin Meese, commissioned associates to investigate the adult film industry under the guise of protecting children, which is indeed a noble effort.  But in reality, Reagan’s self-righteous demeanor drove his efforts to limit free speech; to stifle those who dared to disagree with him.  We saw much of the same two decades ago as critics of President George W. Bush were assailed.  Both extremist conservatives and liberals just don’t like when people have something negative to say about their lifestyles.  The same groups don’t have any problem, though, dictating what’s appropriate for others.  Conservatives, in particular, don’t like anything sexual.  It sends them into epileptic fits.

Regardless I can assure everyone that any U.S. Supreme Court assault on pornography will be taken seriously.  It has a lot to do with finances.  As of 2022, the adult film industry in the U.S. profited about $97 billion.  And that kind of money buys a certain amount of power.

The Reagan Administration failed to shut down pornography in the U.S.  Despite the AIDS epidemic, the adult film industry forged ahead in the 1980s and continued growing.  And I can assure even the most ardent of conservatives can’t stop it.  Then again, many of those same conservatives often view pornographic material – they just won’t admit it.  They really can’t because it would undermine their own limited credibility.

No matter what happens with the High Court, I doubt few other matters will resonate with voters as the X factor.  There are few things more obscene to me than war and unfettered censorship.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2023 · 10:06 PM

Shifted

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its first term of 2023 last month with some stunning decisions – stunning, but not surprising.  A year ago the Court finished with its shocking reversal of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade, which had legalized abortion in the United States.  Ending abortion in this country had been a long-standing goal of social and religious conservatives and they finally accomplished that mission.  But this time the Court went further in their swing to the far right by ending affirmative action in college admissions and allowing religion to be used to discriminate.

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause (the 14th Amendment), which bars racial discrimination by government entities.  The 14th Amendment has been utilized to undermine entrenched discrimination for decades.  It has manifested its power in such SCOTUS decisions as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and Miranda v. Arizona.  Ironically, the Students for Fair Admissions ruling reversed a 20-year-old case, Grutter v. Bollinger, which declared race as a plausible factor in college admissions policies.  Have things really changed for the better in two decades?  All of this also reminds me of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, in which a White man, Allan Bakke, sued the University of California Medical School at Davis for refusing to admit him; the school had reserved 16 places in each entering class for qualified ethnic minorities.  Bakke had applied twice to the school and been denied twice, despite having a high GPA and test scores.  SCOTUS ruled that, while race was a qualifying factor in college admissions, the University of California policy at the time, indeed, violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

I have to admit I support their affirmative action decision.  As noble a philosophy as it was, I feel affirmative action has run its course, and – as we march further into the 21st century – it’s time we truly become a color blind society.  Actually it’s way past time.  But, as with campaign promises and many business plans, things look great on paper.  Personally I don’t feel affirmative action has helped me.  It hasn’t hurt me, but it certainly hasn’t helped me.  I never asked for special rights or considerations.  But, like I told a friend years ago, while legislation may have forced the playing field to become level, are all the players on the field playing on the level?

It’s the Creative 303 decision, however, that concerns me the most.  Last year the Supreme Court made perhaps its most controversial decision in decades with the Dobbs ruling that effectively ended the constitutional right to an abortion.  But, in the 2022 Carson v. Makin ruling, the Court chipped even further away at that cherished separation between government and religion, when it declared the state of Maine had violated the constitution when it refused to make public funding available to students attending religious schools.  In general religious institutions don’t pay taxes; therefore, they’ve traditionally been unable to access tax money at either the state or federal level.  The reasoning was practical: anyone who receives government funding should follow certain rules and regulations.  People taking unemployment insurance, for example, have to conduct a minimum number of job searches weekly; otherwise, they can’t receive that money.

In the Creative 303 case, Colorado web site designer Lorie Smith had allegedly refused to design a site for someone planning a same-sex wedding; declaring that it was an affront to her religious beliefs and therefore, violated her First Amendment rights.  It’s similar to another case from Colorado, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which Jack C. Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused to bake a wedding cake for a male couple on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs; he simply didn’t believe in same-gender unions.  The couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, filed suit, claiming Phillips was in violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.  The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Philips’ favor, decreeing that the Colorado statute violated “the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to use hostility toward religion or a religious viewpoint as a basis for laws or regulations.”

But no sooner had the Creative 303 ruling been made than news arose that Smith may have fabricated her initial claim.  The man who supposedly asked her to design a web site for a same-gender wedding states he never worked with her.  Smith, however, cited the man – identified only as “Stewart” – in 2017 court documents and included his phone number and email address.  But “Stewart” says he didn’t even know his name had been invoked in the original lawsuit until a report with “The New Republic” contacted him.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats.  He noted that he’s a designer himself and could have created his own web site if necessary.

One of Smith’s lawyers, Kristen Waggoner, insisted Stewart’s name and other information had been submitted to her client’s web site and denied the entire claim had been fabricated.  But she suggested an internet troll had made the request to Smith; adding that’s it occurred with other clients.  Ironically, the aforementioned Jack C. Phillips was also Waggoner’s client.

Regardless, I have to wonder if this revelation doesn’t render the Creative 303 ruling invalid.  Even if an internet troll had made the initial application, Smith’s attorneys should have verified every detail of the case.  That’s what lawyers are supposed to do.

Getting a matter before the U.S. Supreme Court is no small feat; they don’t take on minor traffic infractions.  That’s why so many of their decisions are monumental and can reshape society.  And thus, it’s why people are rightfully concerned about the implications of the Creative 303 edict.  If religious ideology can be the basis for discrimination, who’s to say a business owner can’t refuse to service a prospective client under such a pretense?  Technically businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, but that’s generally happened only under the most egregious of circumstances.  A bar or nightclub, for example, can refuse to admit someone who’s visibly intoxicated.  I’ve seen signs on doors declaring “no shirt, no shoes, no service”.

Years ago another friend told me I discriminate whenever I choose one food item over another.  “That’s not discrimination,” I told him, “that’s selection.”  But he was a conservative, so I guess I understood why he couldn’t make that distinction.

Still, I certainly hope many Black, Hispanic and queer conservatives are happy with their votes for George W. Bush and Donald Trump.  Despite not winning the popular vote in their respective elections, they were able to place five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.  That has never happened before in the history of U.S. legal jurisprudence.  All five of those individuals have now set back decades of civil rights advancements.  A truly democratic society is supposed to protect all of its citizens from bigotry and oppression.  I fear we’re doing the opposite in the United States.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 23, 2022 · 3:40 AM

Best Quotes of the Week – July 23, 2022

“There’s nothing more dangerous than professed Christians who have no real interest in Jesus. They’re rather easy to spot if you’re paying attention.  They’re usually the ones most loudly claiming things like religious liberty while methodically swallowing up the personal freedoms and elemental rights of other people.  They incessantly broadcast their devotion of God on their bumpers and bellies, while living antithetically to the compassionate heart of Jesus actually found in the Scriptures.”

John Pavlovitz, “Actual Followers of Jesus Don’t Want Conservatives’ Compulsory Christianity”

“It is clear that their attempts to roll back the clock on contraception is again another plank on their extreme agenda for American women.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, after the House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act

The bill codifies the right to birth control amid concerns the U.S. Supreme Court may repeal the right to contraception following the Dobbs decision that reversed the right to abortion.

It’s worth noting 195 Republican members of the House voted against the act.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

July 22, 2022 · 8:40 PM

Next!

“First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.”

Martin Niemöller

We’re still in shock here in the U.S.  In just a matter of weeks, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court undid decade’s worth of progressive social reforms.  The reversal of Roe vs. Wade last month garnered the most attention, but they didn’t stop with that.

In Vega vs. Tekoh, the High Court ruled that a violation of Miranda rights doesn’t provide a basis for civil damages.  The original Miranda vs. Arizona decision ensured people accused of criminal behavior have the right to legal counsel and to remain silent in the face of police interrogation.  Miranda was decided in line with the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which had already established certain guidelines for addressing criminal procedures.  The Vega ruling now ensures that law enforcement can act with impunity.  I suspect it’s a response to the vitriolic reactions to high-profile police killings over the past…well, several decades; the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests and all that.  In Vega, the SCOTUS majority noted that, if the original Miranda court intended to create a constitutional right versus a prophylactic rule, it would have definitively declared that immediately upon deciding Miranda.  The 1966 Court knew how to use its words, the current Court essentially declared, and those words used were not “constitutional right.”  See how verbiage can be twisted so easily by academics?

In West Virginia vs. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court undercut the latter’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.  SCOTUS agreed with Republican-led states and energy companies that the 1970 Clean Air Act gave the EPA too much power over carbon emissions.  The decision was also a strike back against the 2015 Clean Power Plan – an Obama-era policy that targeted adverse climate change.  To environmentalists, it wasn’t surprising that energy conglomerates were adamant in reversing the CPP, as well as the CAA.  But the West Virginia ruling falls in line with the belief of conservatives that climate change is a hoax.  That’s why energy companies overwhelmingly support Republican candidates.  I have to note West Virginia is a top coal producer.  It also ranks as one of the poorest states in the union.

In his statement regarding the Dobbs ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Court should revisit other high-profile rulings, including Griswold vs. Connecticut, which declared the legal usage of contraceptives; Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws; and Obergefell vs. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.  Curiously, he didn’t call for a review of Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, which declared that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional or Loving vs. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage.  I guess this is because overturning these decisions would impact Thomas, a Negro married to a White chick.  It’s amazing how some people have no problems enacting laws that wouldn’t affect them personally.

In the 1983 film “The Star Chamber”, Michael Douglas portrays a relatively young judge who becomes engaged with a group of other jurists who find the legal system has gone awry in favor of criminals and decide to enact vigilante justice to right those perceived wrongs.  They hire assassins to kill certain criminals who have escaped incarceration.  The movie is replete with scenes where highly articulate lawyers help defendants get out of trouble.  In one early scene, Hal Holbrook’s character tells Douglas, “Someone has hidden justice inside the law.”  It’s an attempt to justify the group’s brutal actions.

That’s how I often view the legal system.  Charismatic lawyers prancing around even the most heinous of crimes with carefully-crafted verbiage; a kind of Tolkien-style language only they understand, but something the rest of us have to deal with toiling away in the trenches of reality.  I certainly don’t recommend assassination as a viable resolution to our nation’s political ills.  That’s where the treasured right of voting comes into play.  People need to take their voting rights seriously and understand the significance of not voting.  We’ve seen the fruits of voter apathy in my home state of Texas.  In recent years, the right to vote has come under fire from conservatives.  As with many other rights, this isn’t a surprise.  Conservatives have always tried to suppress voting.  You know…the way totalitarian regimes like Russia have.  I’ve noted more than once that the (fair and legitimate) elections of Barack Obama prompted (mostly White) conservatives to launch their assault on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  During their convention last month, the Texas Republican Party called for repeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which guarantees the right to vote regardless of race.  They did this because…well, because that’s what conservatives do – at least here in the U.S.  They were quick to abolish fascism in Europe during World War II, but weren’t so eager to do the same at home.

With this in mind, I wonder if many conservative queers who voted for the likes of George W. Bush and Ted Cruz are satisfied with their decisions.  Along with many mainstream right-wingers, some are ecstatic that Roe was overturned.  But now, I hate to see their reactions at the thought of reversing Lawrence or Obergefell.  But the neo-Nazi clowns who have targeted the so-called “liberal agenda” for years are coming for their faggot asses next!  I just hope they’ll be happy sitting in their designer closets polishing their Ronald Reagan Glee Club pins.

If anyone in the U.S. believes democracy is functioning just perfectly and nothing is wrong, they need to consider this: five of the current justices on the Supreme Court were chosen by presidents who did NOT win the popular vote.  George W. Bush didn’t really win the 2000 presidential election and he barely won the 2004 election; yet he was able to appoint two justices – Samuel Alito and John Roberts.  Donald Trump certainly didn’t win the 2016 presidential election (perhaps the most corrupt in U.S. history), but he was able to appoint three justices to the Court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney-Barrett.  Gorsuch’s selection came because Republicans refused to grant President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, the decency of a hearing upon the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016; claiming it was an election year and the next president should choose the nominee.  However, Barrett’s nomination came after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2020.  The same band of Republicans who denied Garland a hearing rammed through Barrett’s confirmation without hesitation.

I don’t know if most Americans fully comprehend the significance of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe.  It could lead to much worse.  But this is what happens when people don’t bother to vote in even the most mundane of elections.  Liberals seem especially reticent to take local races seriously.  I can only recommend everyone concerned about our democracy to make that concerted effort to vote.  I understand how many people feel their votes don’t count, particularly after the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections and all the corruption involved in both.

Yet, democracy is not a natural form of governing.  Humanity is more likely to construct an oligarchy-style system.  In worse case settings, totalitarianism can take root, as it almost did with Donald Trump in the White House.  People need to be wary of the current U.S. Supreme Court and its fascist leanings, disguised as social conservatism.  (Then again, fascism and conservatism are pretty much the same ideology.)

It’s starting with the Roe reversal.  Unless we place more moderates into public office, it will only get worse.

Bottom image: Michael de Adder

3 Comments

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 25, 2022 · 2:16 AM

Best Quotes of the Week – June 25, 2022

“With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in their dissent of the decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade

The trio warned that abortion opponents now could pursue a nationwide ban “from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest.”

“Thirty years, murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass shooting after mass shooting, Congress did nothing.  This week we have a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, after passage of a bill to address gun violence in the U.S.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 24, 2022 · 10:58 PM

Roe Back

“Fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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.

Just wait for it.  They’ve awoken a giant.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,