Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows abortion rights about to be overturned

Christian fundamentalists in the United States are happy right now.

Today Politico reported that a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion indicates that Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutional right to abortion in that 1973 case, is about to be overturned.

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wadedecision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

This is the first time a Supreme Court opinion has been leaked to the press.

It shows that someone at the court, perhaps a law clerk, recognized how horrible overturning abortion rights will be, and wanted to give a head start to the outrage rather than wait until late June or early July when the abortion decision was expected to be released to the public.

There are decent reasons to oppose abortion and even better reasons to support the right of women to choose an abortion. But a truly lousy reason to be against abortion is that this is what God wants. As in Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying, "Our creator endowed us with the right to life."

That's absurd. 

Since there is no demonstrable evidence of a creator God (or any other sort of God), obviously there's no basis for claiming to know what God has done or wants people to do.

I can understand why someone objects to abortion. A fetus is a potential human life. But a pregnant woman is an actual human life. Women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy than from an abortion. 

So abortion is justified for that reason, along with other reasons, including simply this being what a woman chooses.

A terrible reason is that an embryo must be treated as a person at conception, which is the teaching of the Catholic Church, according to a BBC article. Obviously a few cells isn't a person. Thus probably the notion of an immortal soul is the reason for viewing those few cells as deserving more protection than the woman in whose womb the cells reside.

Six of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are Catholic, with five of those six being part of the 6-3 conservative majority. The sixth conservative, Neil Gorsuch, is Episcopalian but was raised Catholic.

So even though the final decision on abortion will be couched in legal terms, pretty clearly religious belief plays a large part in how the justices view abortion. Opposition to abortion flows largely from fundamentalist churches.

Those opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, appear to have won this Supreme Court battle, but the war for women's rights and individual freedom will continue. Hopefully the backlash over the forthcoming Supreme Court decision will lead to voters punishing Republicans at the polls in the November election.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

"Six of the nine justices of the Supreme Court are Catholic"

I've often thought that people who subscribe to a literal belief in whatever nonsense their religion teaches them, should not be eligible to hold any kind of responsible position. Like, no position at all, except maybe as janitors, or the equivalent, and even that latter subject to regular checks about their ability to carry out even that very limited responsibility.

I mean, think about it. If some adult believes, literally, that they were beamed down at age 10 years from a spaceship, and that they were actually an alien born in a galaxy far far away, and that they would shrivel up and die if they ever let a needle prick them, or if they ever put anything green in their mouth, or if they ever forgot to bathe their big toes with beer at exactly 12 AM and 12 PM (not local time but at some particular point in the middle of the Gobi desert, because that is the point where all aliens are beamed down when they're 10 years old, before being miraculously teleported to their respective families around the globe, there to be fitted with false memories about their years on earth prior to that point). That, as well as a host of other observances that go with this cockamamie belief. Or some other such brand of utter nonsense.

I'm guessing someone like this will not be considered safe with a gun. They'll probably not be deemed safe working with heavy equipment, maybe not even driving a car. I'm guessing no corporation in its right mind will induct such a weirdo into any kind of responsible position.

And yet, people who believe even crazier things, that their religions teach them, are somehow considered safe doing everything that everyone else does.

This is crazy, this state of affairs. Religion is, to my mind, normalized craziness. Some crazy idiocy, believing which might get some individual institutionalized, or at least treated with meds and stuff and considered, well, crazy, until cured: somehow all of this become entirely acceptable just because it's part of the doctrine of some religion. This is utterly insupportable, this state of affairs.

No wonder this gaggle of ignorant irrational superstitious judges are given to passing utterly idiotic judgments.

I'm so glad I hadn't been born some three or four hundred or so years ago, or maybe more, when religious madness was the norm. Where anyone who might have the wits to realize the utter idiocy of these superstitions would have stood out, and been considered crazy and evil, and persecuted and maybe tortured and killed. It's exactly like the proverbial sane man who's trapped in a mental asylum --- all the actual crazies are quite literally "normal" there, and this sole sane person the odd one out. What utter nightmare, such a state of affairs.

Except: Although not quite that bad, but that's exactly the kind of world that many of us actually live in, even today. In our individual pockets that we inhabit, in individual groups, ...I mean, it's monstrous that such a responsible position as SC judge should be open to blithering morons that cannot see the idiocy in their stupid beliefs, that a clear-eyed ten-year-old can see through.

Let's hope one day, soon, and hopefully within our lifetimes, this madness of religion will be relegated to no more than a historical oddity. Absolutely, meditation's a great thing, I'm all for encouraging bona fide research, as well as individual practice (for those who happen to be interested, not everybody), in meditation, just like one might encourage both research and practice into physical fitness: but these crazy-ass nonsensical beliefs, I do hope that we live to see the day when these nonsensical beliefs are not considered "okay", and that people subscribing to them are limited to actual madmen, who're treated as such.

[Appreciative Reader]

Rereading my comment, and lest some religious apologist jump up frothing at the mouth in outrage, as I've seen happen in the past, at a literalist reading of what I've said here:

I'm not actually advocating for some totalitarian state of affairs, that is intolerant of anything that deviates from the party line. That would be to forcefit the appearance of sanity (and/or rationality) on to a largely insane (and/or selectively irrational) world. Natually such a solution would be worse than the malady it seeks to cure.

What I'm envisioning, what I'm looking forward to, is a world where a sane rational outlook and approach, as well as sane beliefs, and a clear recognition that insane irrational superstitions are just that, are organically what people are educated and aware enough to understand and recognize; so that the above state of affairs follows naturally and as a matter of course.

Unfortunately that world isn't the world we inhabit. Although we're getting there, hopefully, but we're not there yet, not even close. To forcibly impose this sort of thing to today's world would be indefensible on ethical and moral grounds, as well as entirely impractical. In my comment what I'm advocating, and looking forward to, is a state of affairs organically arrived at where the sane and rational is recognized by all (or most all) as sane and rational, and the insane and irrational recognized as such, and treated as such.

[um]

@ AR
Any [social cultural] group, in order to stay together and survive needs organisation based upon an narrative that all can believe in.

The sutra says:
People should stand shoulder by shoulder.

Those standing shoulder by shoulder face and share the same focus.
If the lose the common focus, the see one another.
Shortly thereafter the will start an argument.
Later they fight.
In the end they will kill one another.

When an common focus does not longer serve the group, it will be displaced by another ... at least that is what history is all about.

What matters is not the object of focus, but the sharing it with others.

Religion is just one of the many tools that are used in groups to stay alive an flourish. Tools can be used in positive ways and negative ways. That too can be found in history books.

Religion has been the focus of the founding fathers of the USA and it served them well.
It gave them the power to cross the ocean, leave everything behind in Europe and started an new society, more liberal, more democratic as describe by "de Tocqueville" in his work on the birth and growth of american Democracy.

That same force caused also misery upon the indigenous peoples of the USA and Canada.

Or to speak with our "Messiah" the soccer player Johan Cruyff .. every disadvantage comes with an advantage.

And ... as nothing ever changes .... the role of religion in society will be replaced by something else mostly not better often even worst as can be learned also from history books that relate about the many revolutions mankind has seen.

In the past many would die due to lack of transport or during the transport on carts driven by horses and oxs. Then that problem was solved, by creating smooth tar roads and vehicles with smooth tyres. Now they die in traffic incidents probably more then before the "solution" ....

In the past knowledge was withheld from the masses. These days people might draw in the sea of information or their mind being poisoned by information that they cannot digest.

Selective adomination

[um]

@ AR
>>In my comment what I'm advocating, and looking forward to, is a state of affairs organically arrived at where the sane and rational is recognized by all (or most all) as sane and rational, and the insane and irrational recognized as such, and treated as such.<<

Be aware AR, be aware ... you are entering the world of IDEOLOGY .. the world of people that believe, hope, think that things can be and should be better then they are.

Humans AR ... HUMANS .. they are like crows they do not change

Everything they do, feel, think has its counterpart or erlative other that makes them seen good or bad.

There are those people even to day, hidden in dense forests, that have not addopted the dogma of growth [5% on investment ... hahah], betterment etc and are considered by us as "primitive". They miss the advantages, or so called advantages of an civilize society, but they also miss the opposite. They have no schools, no rational fylosofy, no hospitals, no phone, no TV no oekraiinan war, no people that can push buttons to destroy the whole world ... they are human too AR. They also are born live their live and die.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Be aware AR, be aware ... you are entering the world of IDEOLOGY .. the world of people that believe, hope, think that things can be and should be better then they are."

In an manner of speaking, and going by the technical definition of "ideology", I suppose you're right.

But insisting for oneself that one looks, as best one can, at reality unvarnished (to repeat, as best one can), is that really an ideology like any other?

It's like this: On a sheet of paper, you have the question, "2 + 2 = ?". And five possible answers: (a) 2 + 2 = 0; (b) 2 +2 = 4; (c) 2 + 2 = 7; (d) 2 + 2 = Infinity; (e) 2 + 2 = Whatever you wish it to be after you invoke the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; and (f) 2 + 2 = Butterscotch.

Now I suppose you might argue that to "teach" that 2 + 2 = 4, that is an ideology. And technically you'd be right, that's an ideology, sure.

But just because teaching each of those other options is also an ideology, and teaching sane mathematics is in a sense ideology as well, that doesn't imply --- as you seem to be implying --- that they are all, in a sense, equivalent. No, one answer is right, and all of the rest are wrong. Again, putting it in those terms sounds totalitarian; but the difference between real totalitarianism and this is that the former insists on some particular answer, while what I'm talking about is simply a sincere effort to know real truth, *unvarnished of ideological blinkers*, and as best one can.

-------

"Humans AR ... HUMANS .. they are like crows they do not change"

um, perhaps your outlook is overly cynical, or at least overly resigned?

People *can* change, people *can* grow. I know we can, individually. Collectively, as well, it is a fact that we *have* changed, we *have* grown, that much is evident if we compare today's society (in normal, decent areas, as opposed to "godforsaken" places where theocracy operates) with that of times past.

Sure, there are limits to how much, in some given time, I guess; although even here perhaps we can grow faster and better than we might at first imagine, both individually and collectively. But to suggest that no change or growth is possible at all in how a human being thinks and acts, whether individually or collectively? That's too bleak, too cynical an outlook for me to accept. In any case, it's clearly not true, is it, if we look at the actual evidence of where we're at vis-a-vis where we'd been?

[Appreciative Reader]

"In the past knowledge was withheld from the masses. These days people might draw in the sea of information or their mind being poisoned by information that they cannot digest."

Heh, yes, that's true enough. One would have imagined that given the age of the Internet, there'd be an explosion of information and knowledge and wisdom even, of egalitarianism, of extinction (or at least a moving towards extinction) of parochialism and closed-mindedness and superstitions. While in selected pockets that has happened, but the exact opposite has, somehow, come to pass in other pockets, other niches. Very true.

Which of these two ...impulses, if I may call it that... wins out eventually, and by what margin, that may perhaps determine the fate of the human race. Or at least, to put it in less grand terms, that might decide the next step where we find ourselves at, we as a species.

[um]

@ AR

There is nothing wrong with mathematicus and I do hope I will not reach a point that I would say otherwise.

Humans might have become so identified with their cultural expression that they have lost the idea of what the essence of the natural human being is all about.

The natural man, like the crow cannot change and in case it evolves, the process behind it is not in his hands.

But he certainly has the natural capacity to recreate his natural existence wherever he wants. He can do it also for "pleasure" .... cuisine and couture are an example.

That need to change is part of the cultural tale that people live. Those Primitive ones live another tale but thei are not different from us.

Bleak, cybnic etc . are just ADJECTIVES ... related to the observer that attributes his toughts and feelings. ... they do not change the crow or the taste of the coffee that I am going to make after this sentence.... hahaha

AR I do not suggest let alone say to others that they should act otherwise than they are doing let alone justify ... why ... they do what they do and reap the fruits thereof.
and I am one of them.

[um]

@ AR

Special for You ... :-))

Dad?!
Yes?
What do you think, should I go to the iniversity?
Silence ...
Sight,
another deep sight ...
Um, I never went to university, why would you?
Dad walks away...
Wait dad, wait dad .. do not walk away.
Tell me ...
There is nothing to be said.

Only now I do understand. He did not say that I should go to University, nor not to do it.
University was unimportant for being human.to its full

[TENDZIN]

I really doubt the next election will be a referendum on Roe v Wade. I'm sure there are many progressives who see the overturning of Roe as the end of the world, but there's no evidence the bulk of the U.S. population feels that way. That's because the overturning of Roe wouldn't be a national ban on abortion. It would simply return the issue to each state to decide.

According to Gallup polls since the 1970s, the majority of the public wants abortion to remain legal. That's not likely to change. Indeed, it's all but impossible for laws to be passed in a democracy that conflicts with what the majority of the people want.

[Appreciative Reader]

That last bit ... do you mean your father left it to you to do as you yourself elected, without himself weighing in one way or the other? If that was what he meant to convey --- or at least, if that was what you understood him to have conveyed! --- then I'd say it was very wise of him.

I mean, going to university is a no-brainer, right? But still, to do that because of some impulse external to one's own inner drives and motivations, is probably not a good reason at all --- regardless of how that might actually turn out in the end.

Agreed, absolutely, um.

(Assuming we're on the same page about what you'd meant to convey?)

[um]

@ AR

I am with you but I am not sure whether you are with me on the same page ... hahaha

Cultural we can change and we do, we develop etc but natural we can not.

[hickory dickery dock]

Abortion is murder simply because it is

Whether a religious person or a politician steeped in religious beliefs says it or not, fact is it's murder.

Modern American society is round the bend and there's not all that much sanity left over in its stuttering statutes of law to save it from imploding in on itself, let alone its derailed and deranged political parties and politicians gone down the tubes of oblivious obligatory blindness to obliterate its own history and heritage.

[um]

@ Hickory

Not all killing is labeled "murder" although in ALL cases the life of another living creature is taken without its consent.

The soldier that kills is not called an murderer although for the one he kills it makes no difference, by whom he is killed with what motive etc .. as his life is taken without his consent.

The same holds for the criminal that is kille upon the order of the judge.

If the killing is related to another value we do not call it murder.

Seen from the one that is killed without his consent there will never be an justification. The justification is only for the one that commits the killing for a good that is beyond the object of killing.

[hickory dickery dock]

The consequence of consent to pleasure is responsibility of the action. The consequence of fornication is pregnancy, this is the result of the conscious action. Unless it's a consequence of forced abuse, of rape, in which case the lesser of the consequences to mitigate the level of suffering is acceptable, then to kill the unborn is an act of insensitivity, to kill a conscious life is akin to murder.

[um]

@ Hickory

>> .... to kill the unborn is an act of insensitivity, to kill a conscious life is akin to murder.<<

Murderers kill
but not all that kill are murderers.

Nobody knows where life starts al least I do not.

I am planting seeds to grow some herbs, herbs i need in the kitchen to cook.
In time they will develop and I will get rid of weeds. in order to have the herbs grow.
I do not know where life starts.
Did the life that is in the herb started on the plant from which the seeds were collected.?
Was there still life when I harvested them and dried them for the year to come?
Or did life start when I did cover them with earth and watered them?

Is the life force in the sperm or in they egg?

Maybe You know but I do not.

What I know is by experience that everything that is visible in this world was born, wants to stay alive and dies and that that aliveness can only be enden by others without its consent. I am aware of it even if i pluck an apple to eat and keep myself alive.

Staying alive comes in levels ... material, mental and spiritual.

The Holy books are full of killings and destruction by the creator himself or on his behalve ... they are not called murder but inorder to have this or that actor in the bible or his tribe stay alive others, often with the hundreds or thousands had to lose their life.

Murderers kill
but not all that kill are considered murderers.

[hickory dickery dock]

We're not talking about holy books or biblical history we're talking about human biological life from inception of fertilization of egg by sperm. Consciousness is manifest in the fetus body at very early age. Abortion is murder of a conscious human being.

Yes you are right about killing the apple to sustain your life, you are correct that all life subsistence is based on killing another life and consuming energy from alternative life force to survive in the world of birth decay and death.

But the consequence of forced killing of high form of life as in human life (even of animal life) is considered excessive.

Therefore by taking life of a human is a high level of inflicting suffering, and gravity of the cost of the harm against the conscious life of the unborn child, whether alive in the womb or in the world is extremely severe concerning the nature of the level of consciousness and suffering.

[um]

@ Hickory

Abortion is the ending of the growth of the fertilized egg.
As stated all endings, killing is an ending, is done without consent.
Humanity has developed legal rights, for all sorts of ending without consent.
That is done based upon the notion that this ending serves and another good.

Mothers and governments send their sons to the war to be killed by the thousands
The same legislators that are anti abortus have no problem to have these young men to be killed for something as abstract as democracy, the flag, honor and god knows what more. they do towards their sons what you describe in the last paragraph

Abortion should not be a legal matter.
And those that decide to have it should have access to medical care.
It has nothing to do with rights and it does no deserve adjectives like murder..

[hickory dickery dock]

Give it another adjective. Murder of human life is murder.

War and atrocities of mankind's inhumanity to each other is another subject matter.

The distinction between inception of life and consequence of death is did it occur naturally or was it forcefully taken for granted that such actions are inconsequential?

[um]

@ Hickory

Murderers kill
not all that kill are murderers.

Killing is ending something without its consent.

The use of the word murder is legally restricted to particular form of killing / ending.

The differentiation of words is never relate to that that is ended but to him or her that commits the ending.

Soldiers etc etc are never called murderers as long as they kill within the legal frame that allows them to do so. If they go beyond that framework it will be called a war crime and murder.

The very fact of ending the existence of something, has no meaning by itself.
The meaning is attributed.

All endings are forcefull and without consent.

In the same way as an society allows their children to be killed in war, the right to end is given to women. .... that said nobody forces them to make use of that right.

Those that have their existence ended never consented .. those that are killed by the soldier, the government etc have no say in it .. they have no rights. Only the actor has rights, legal rights. That is how humanity has decided to do things.

Society is not interested in victims only in actors.

It has always been that way.

[um]

And Hickory

In all cases, legal or not, everybody is responsible for his or her decisions.

So whether divorces are legal or not, the consequences for those that separate are the same..
The same holds for abortion. Legal or not it every women that goes through it has to bear the consequences with her body and mind ... no law, no activist pro or contra can change that.

What is legal is not by definition good

[hickory dickery dock]

The mother who aborts her child for reasons other than she did not have consenting sex with her partner at the moment of inception has the consequence of her decision to end an innocent human life on her conscience.

All other motivation of human beings actions related to this human disorder of national political or ethnic insecurity resulting in aggressive infliction of killing and suffering have varied causes and consequences and reactions. To conflate one inhumane action relative to another does not address the issue at hand.

[TENDZIN]

"Women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy than from an abortion. "

This is one of the halt-truths the pro-abortion folk peddle, but there's more to the story.

Pregnant women in the United States die by homicide more often than they die of pregnancy-related causes — and they’re frequently killed by a partner, according to a study published last month in Obstetrics & Gynecology magazine.

Also, studies show that women who have children live longer than women who remain childless.

Also, U.S. women often choose to have C-sections, which increases their health risk.

Also, it's typically poorer U.S. women who have health problems in pregnancy, and that's because they aren't getting needed care either because they can't afford it, or because they are careless about getting care. Often women in this cohort engage in behavior that heightens their health risk.

It doesn't have to be this way. Women in Sweden and Norway have the lowest rates (four and five maternal deaths, respectively, per 100,000 live births). Potential contributing factors for the high U.S. mortality rates include lack of prenatal care and higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

And so, the claim that lack of abortion kills women doesn't really hold together.

[um]

@ Hickory

>> The mother who aborts her child for reasons other than she did not have consenting sex with her partner at the moment of inception has the consequence of her decision to end an innocent human life on her conscience.<<

That is for her to decide, and for nobody else.
The consequences of that decision, legal or not, are also hers and hers alone.
The fact of abortion being legal does not change that.

Those that walk the streets pro and contra are in fact the same .. they have in common that they want others to act as they wish. .. and ... they are not interested in the welfare of women at all ... behind it are mostly other motives to be found that have nothing to do with women welfare in general or abortion in partticular ... it is about power

[um]

@ Hickory

In Europe we have ended that discussion long ago. Only some orthodox Christians have problems in accepting the status quo and go on imposing their religious views, unasked for, on others.

Christianity is no longer a ruling force in Europe.

These days other authorities decide about these issues related to life and death besides the clergy.

We are leaving the middle ages behind in which authorities decided what each individual was supposed to do with his or her life.

Life, was given to an individual, if there was a giver, but certainly not to others.

[hickory dickery dock]

Of course it's her decision to make.

I don't agree with abortion, the consequence of engaging in consenting sexual relationship resulting in pregnancy is a natural phenomenon resulting in a human life being conceived, and ending the life of the living person should not be taken as lightly as getting a nose job or a botox injection, which has become the social default effect by allowing medical practice to reduce the nature of life to an inconvenient surgical procedure.

[um]

@ Hickory

You don't agree wit abortion ... so what?
Who cares?

[hickory dickery dock]

It (Life) was given to an individual, by design or by accident, it was nevertheless still given, and no one should have the right to take it away.

Not even the custodial bearer of the individual life. Not unless she was forced into the situation against her consenting will at the time of her conceiving the seed that impregnated her ovarian fertility and began the process of the life of an individual human being.

[hickory dickery dock]

Nothing to do with Christian or religious affiliated beliefs. Simply a matter of ethical and personal responsibility and accountability for their actions, and to the life of the children (both born and those refused the benefits of existence to be born into a human life)

[um]

@ Hickory

I do understand your point of view and you are entitled to have it and live by it but you are not asked to force it upon others.

Conversion, the hallmark of Christian lore, is based upon the idea .. that what is good for me is also good for others and if the do not adopt to what is good for them it has to be forced upon them..

You are not given the right or authority to tell other people what to do and how to live, that right is only given to you as far as your own life is concerned.

You are not given the right to look after the live of neither the women or the unborn child ....nor are you asked to set the norm for what is valuable or not in life.

[hickory dickery dock]

So who sets the value, which authority decides where life begins or ends? Which non religious academic or political authority decides whose life and existence is more valuable than another? It boils down to some or other authority makes the societal and ethical (or unethical) law.

And more often than not its the same political powers who send their troops to war who make the laws that allow lives to be ended before they begin.

[um]

@ Hickory

Again, there is nothing wrong with your opinion, I am not arguing about it nor did I write a word about what my personal opinions are in the matter.

It is the lobby, by both contra and pro sides, that is at stake; people that want to force others to think as they do.... they both USE it as a means to an end, an end that has nothing to do with the welfare of women or even their unborn child.

[Ron E.]

Where it is the case that a persons beliefs determines how the law is applied is decidedly archaic. In my view it would be practically impossible for a person who holds religious beliefs to make judgements without being influenced by that belief. It is very difficult and complex, even though ones beliefs may not stem from archaic religious teachings, everyone has some sort of belief and opinion about abortion.

The rest of the natural world doesn't have such problems. Many animals abort or kill their young, usually for reasons of food supply or the mother's physical condition. This may apply to humans though the main factor is more connected to how we think or feel about having a baby in view of our circumstances. And our feelings and circumstances can be very relevant, something a mind enmeshed in a belief system may have difficulty in understanding.

Regarding abortion, laws and guidelines obviously need to be made – though the woman's particular needs need to be paramount.

[Appreciative Reader]

"...the woman's particular needs need to be paramount."

Not to mention her *rights*.

I'm a man, but it makes my blood boil when I hear ignorant superstitious fools blithely pass moral judgments about what a woman should or should not be doing with her body.

Certainly in the case of abortions, when it's just a fetus, not quite yet a baby born. But it goes beyond that. Take breastfeeding. It's been shown, proven to a certainty, that breast milk is best for the baby in the first few months. Also, evolution has generally equipped women to feel that physical bonding with her child, so that she herself derives not just emotional succor but actual physical benefits from breastfeeding her child. In other words, breastfeeding is "natural", and without a doubt good for the baby. But, my point is, all of that said, if an individual woman, for whatever reason --- and regardless of whether anyone else likes that reason --- does not want to breastfeed her child, then that decision is hers and hers alone to make. How dare some fool of a busybody ever imagine in their wildest dreams that they have the slightest right to decide on behalf of the woman what she *should* be doing with her lactating breasts?! Likewise this abortion business: Without going into the science of fetal development, which is a long involved discussion that I've neither time nor inclination to get into at this time: How dare some fool of an ignorant superstitious busybody presume to tell this woman what her conscience ought to be saying to her in this regard, and what she should or should not be doing with her own fucking body. The very thought is monstrous.

Like I said, if I may be permitted some hyperbole, these idiots of judges, that subscribe to the asinine Catholic doctrine, instead of presiding as judges in the courtroom, they should be down on their knees cleaning the toilets in the court precincts, that's all they're good for. Even that under strict supervision, because who knows if they happen to find a turd that looks like Jesus what they may end up doing with it, these cross-eyed, dribbling fools.

It's monstrous that in this day and age we're even having this debate. That educated people subscribe to such asinine beliefs as the RCC doctrine. That people holding such absurd beliefs are not treated like the whack jobs they are, but are let loose to run amok in important influential positions that affect the lives of millions. That people holding such ridiculous beliefs number not in the tens or hundreds but literally billions. That people "debate" about whether they have the right to make decisions about what a woman is to do with her own body. Perfectly monstrous, the very thought.

[Appreciative Reader]

There are many countries in the world today that are beyond hope, at least in the short term, as far as a sane rational worldview. There are theocracies and not-quite-theocracies-but-almost-there societies and countries aplenty, whose wretched populace have no option but to somehow make do in a political and religious climate that is closer to the dark ages or the middle ages than to the modern sane worldview that some have the privilege to be able to take for granted. (Although of course, a great many of said "wretched populace" are, in their utter ignorance and stupidity, perfectly happy to not just live in but to actually applaud such a state of affairs, which is why such a state of affairs obtains in the first place. That's the difficulty with democracy: If a large majority resolutely believes in racism for instance --- if I may be permitted this Godwin --- then there's no reasonable way to democratically keep such a society/country from devolving into some Nazi-ish hellhole, no matter the starting point.)

So anyway, those wretched lands are, for the moment at least, beyond hope. There's Europe, but it no longer carries any real influence in the world at large, not really. The European "powers" are firmly in the has-been category, even the ones that are still doing well, while others are reduced to economic near-beggary. Which leaves the US as beacon to the world at large. I know, I know, receding US influence, all of that. But without getting into the politics of it, culturally speaking, the US is uniquely situated, in that it holds out a beacon of hope to the world at large, that reasonableness and rationality and sanity and fairness and humanity, these are things that we are evolving towards, we as a species. So that the rise of Trump was a catastrophe not just for the US, but in a sense for the whole world, and thank God that nightmare has passed, if only for the moment. If only we were able to firmly boot out these fools, that would be more at home five hundred years ago than they are in the sane rational world of today, if only. But of course, and like I'd said yesterday, to impose such a decision on an unwilling populace would itself tantamount to totalitarianism, which is both ethically insupportable and practically unviable. The only way to bring about such a state of affairs --- where a debate like this, about whether women actually have the right to do what they like with their bodies, or whether others have the right to decide for them what they are to do with it, is conducted, if at all, only half-jokingly by sophomore debate clubs not by serious earnest adults --- is organically, by educating the populace itself. And as far as that: Rationality and sanity have ended up the majority POV, for the moment, but unfortunately that majority is much too slim.

The US owes it to itself, and to a world that despite all its blemishes still looks up to it as a beacon of hope, to make sure this monstrous fracture in the direction of where the law is evolving, does not happen. Not violently, not through strife, but amicably, and in a civilized manner.

Huh. Pipe dream. That last I mean. I'll settle for merely not taking these (legal) steps back into barbarity, even if the how of it is not overly "civilized" and genteel.

[umami]

"Leaders didn’t outlaw abortion in America until the mid-1800s. From colonial days until those first laws, abortion was a regular part of life for women. Common law allowed abortion prior to “quickening” — an archaic term for fetal movement that usually happens after around four months of pregnancy."

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america

'Starting around the time of the Civil War, a coalition of male doctors — with the support of the Catholic Church and others who wanted to control women’s bodies — led a movement to push state governments to outlaw abortion across the board. The male-dominated medical profession wanted to take authority from the female-dominated profession of midwives, including the authority to provide abortion."

[umami]

Next on the chopping block, contraception and sex outside of hetero marriage...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/03/roe-v-wade-birth-control

[TENDZIN]

Let's hear it for mob rule. Hurrah for mob rule!

Somehow the same wonderfully just and legitimately constitutional court that gave us Roe v. Wade is a dastardly nest of religious extremists who want to undermine American democracy.

It's the same court folks.

Somehow the unprecedented leaking of a SCOTUS draft and the effects that has on our democratic system doesn't even get a mention.

This leak was a major assault on our democracy. But who knows much about civics these days? (What's civics? Never mind, let's just call everyone who gets in our way a fascist or a religious fundamentalist.)

If you don't understand the purpose and function of the Supreme Court, it may be time to read up on that topic. Reducing the court to a religious tribunal is saddening in the extreme.

What's most surprising to me is that should Roe be overturned, it will result in a greater arena of democracy for American citizens, i.e, one can now vote on the topic of whether your state allows the termination of human lives (some of the best-known defenders of abortion, such as Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan, concede that a fetus is, at the very least, a human organism.)

More voting, more democracy good? Not to some of us, who stand outside the Court and scream "fascist."

Mob rule. My way, every time, all the time, or else. Whatever that is, it's not democracy.

[Roger]

All unhelpful discrimination is a conditioned bias born of ignorance.

Ignorance, within the context of this message, is not about a lack of intelligence, knowledge or education.
It points to the confusion created by the conditioned self-referential mind that does not experience THINGS, physical, emotional, psychological or any combination thereof as they are, but experiences THINGS as it believes they are or wants them to be.
Discrimination is the act of accepting what we like and rejecting what we don’t like.
Discrimination is not good/bad, right/wrong in or of itself, as discrimination is a vital method of enabling our survival.

If discrimination is based in wisdom (the actuality of inter-relatedness and equanimity) it is helpful and if it’s based in ignorance (conditioned bias) it is unhelpful.

[Uchit]

The abortion issue is a very individual issue. There has been cases where aborted babies are used ritualistic sacrifices in underground secret satanic cults so stopping this supply would be beneficial. One issue however that's been lingering for years is the court case of gurinder Singh dhillon. When is this not so innocent guru going to man up and go to the courts and prove that he is indeed clean instead of burying the investigation with paperwork. The narsasist baba has allot to hide and the people need to know why he continues to lie to them. GSD your days are numbered , karma will be served

[TENDZIN]

@ Uchit

I didn't know criminals could avoid justice by "burying the investigation with paperwork."
But you raise a good point -- it's been well over a year since there have been any news stories about Gurinder Singh, which kind of suggests he's innocent. And the brothers are still in prison, which suggests they are not.

[Spence Tepper]

The problems with overturning Roe V Wade are significant. The rights of each person to control their own bodies, as opposed to the state, is at stake.

Allowing individual states to decide what is human and what is not is a far reaching decision that can affect people of different beliefs, orientations, origins and color. That violates the very intention of the constitution, and the bill of rights, which is to establish a foundation of human rights for all, not just men, white men in particular, Christian white men.

The actions of the court gives unwarranted authority of the state and those in control of the state over the bodies of not only women, but whomever the state chooses to target next.

Giving women complete right to choose, in all cases, including rape and incest, is the basic foundation of human rights.

Extending that to the fetus cannot be accomplished violating the rights of the mother.

We will have to progress much further as a society to accomplish a healthy respect for each other first.

Naturally this reactionary move to the far right on the part of the court will result in a significant push to the left, all avoidable.

But maybe it's time to codify women's rights and the rights of all orientations and colors and beliefs much more firmly in our Constitution.

You cannot honor the rights of the fetus by violating the rights of the woman.

That has only been a source of enslavement, couched in the propaganda.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence : [ Giving women complete right to choose, in all cases, including rape and incest, is the basic foundation of human rights.]

This is a very compelling argument. Sadly, many victims are underage children and
with parents themselves being the perp's. IMO the best option in such cases would
be special court committees (including mental health pros) consulting with victims
and then deciding by majority vote to render it as fair and broadly apolitical as possible.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
It's true that underage children must be protected by those around them.

I don't think a court will ever choose to proceed with abortion because of the political and moral ramifications. They will be unable in that instance to make a decision purely on her behalf, which is the only assistance that can be made in respect for her rights. Only the young woman can make that decision.

And if the family is bad she may need another family and significant counseling. But the decision must be hers, and that decision as always accepted as the best and right decision. No one else can understand. So whatever she decides that committee or new family can be instructed by the court to do everything possible to support her decision. The state can help support people, but not control their lives.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence : [ The state can help support people, but not control their lives.]

I agree... to the greatest extent possible. But, families may be so impaired or
dysfunctional, there's effectively no way to implement that choice. Suppose
the underage child is mentally incompetent and was raped by a drug addicted
sibling... and/or is being sex-trafficked for instance. The child isn't competent to
understand her situation and give informed consent. So, the state may "control
her life" and remove her from the toxic home if necessary. Or recommend an
abortion if that's the wish of a legal guardian. Also advise one if the child is too
young to safely give birth. Letting her make her own decision isn't an option
nor should injecting political bias.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness

I have a little experience on this matter with dealing with the mentally incompetent minors and adults. . The court appoints a guardian in that instance. And they make the decision. Not a tribunal and not a vote.

[Dungeness]

@ Spence : [ The court appoints a guardian in that instance. And they make the decision. Not a tribunal and not a vote.]

IMO that's even more a case of "controlling one's life". A broader spectrum
of professionals including those in mental health are more equipped to offer
informed choices and vote on "recommendations", not issue "fiats".

Whether meeting the legal definition of "incompetent' or not, an underage
child will likely be more drawn to a group's recommendation than the
issuance of a fiat. Of course in the end the choice is limited at best.

[Manoj]

Spot on UCHIT.

Gurinder Singh Dhillion has dodged the bullet as to say, one too many times.

His is a well known punjab mafia baba who tries to masquerade as a holy saintly figure.
But many a time keeps on dropping the ball.

Bit dosey I'd say

As for the justice system plenty of big fish are still swimming in the stormy seas of an endlessly croupted Indian Court system.

Which always lands the innocent in prison whilst the convicts are throwing they're lavish parties

The Rupee always talks...

As the world knows that Gurinder Singh Dhillion ripped his own nephews out of Millions, hes still got enough ruppes for a rainy day or two

Whilst the Innocent brothers pick up the tab and are still in the process of paying the price for trusting Goodie two shoe's Gurinder Singh Dhillion.

Moral of the story, not all that glistens is gold

As for the blind sometimes, there's no hope...as we see so many a times on here

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Dungeness
A good guardian ad litem can do a lot for a mentally disabled child where the family is Ill equipped to provide adequate support. It's not just about family planning decisions. And that system has been around for a very long time.

But in cases where the child is competant, they should make the decision for themselves.

[Sonya]

Well, I wouldn’t have been born if abortion was legal in 1972. So, when I look at it from that perspective it’s difficult for me to support abortion rights.

I do recognize what a sensitive subject it is. And I understand that when people choose to get an abortion they truly believe it’s the best decision given their circumstances. However, life is precious. Children can motivate you to achieve things you never thought possible. And having a child with a disability is something that teaches you the TRUE meaning of love. What more could you ask for?

Pregnancy might seem “inconvenient” to some, but to the wise it is a great blessing.

[Spence Tepper]

What the court had done is not establish that the fetus is a full human life. It has established that each state may define what is and is not a human life deserving of all human rights, including that of the woman. The court has established that the woman may not legally be a full human being with full rights over her own body.

That is what this legal precedent is doing.

So are Gays humans? Are the handicapped and disabled humans? Are the elderly humans? Are Muslims humans? Are blacks humans?

In 2022 the Supreme Court of the United States has handed the power to decide who is and isn't human to the states. It is establishing the right of the state to take away the rights of blacks, gays, Jews and anyone they target next as no longer defined as human beings.

This is the most activist decision, and the most reactionary, ever made by the Supreme Court, only matched by the Dredd Scott decision where the court said states can decide if blacks are property or human beings.

[umami]

Behind it all is Christian Dominionism, a movement to turn the US into a theocracy.

"Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or 'biblical law,' should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles."
https://politicalresearch.org/2016/08/18/dominionism-rising-a-theocratic-movement-hiding-in-plain-sight

"The Texas abortion law is one step toward the true goal of Christian dominionism: Destroying democratic government"
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/how-extremist-christian-theology-is-driving-the-right-wing-on-democracy/

"It easily turns into violence. Dominionism is inherently a form of totalitarianism. Christians should not be totalitarians."
https://jenniferrpovey.medium.com/what-is-christian-dominionism-and-why-should-even-christians-fear-it-836d45d28f36

[Spence Tepper]

The Supreme Court, in Roe V Wade protected the rights of the woman to her body and her right to choose what to do with it, within legal boundaries. It is the woman's choice to judge before the third trimester whether the fetus is a human being. That is a religious decision, and a personal one.

But in Justice Alito's argument, he wants the state to make that decision.

Each person can make their own choice. But to take that away especially in this most intimate decision over a woman's body removes the rights from the individual and places it squarely in the hands of the state.

Everyone is free to choose their beliefs, but not free to remove the rights of its citizens.

In this Justice Alito advocates a significant violation of human rights and the Constitutional freedoms afforded to all citizens.

Believe what you like. But your right to impose your views on me ends where my skin begins.

[Sonya]

Modern American society is round the bend and there's not all that much sanity left over in its stuttering statutes of law to save it from imploding in on itself, let alone its derailed and deranged political parties and politicians gone down the tubes of oblivious obligatory blindness to obliterate its own history and heritage.

Posted by: hickory dickery dock | May 03, 2022 at 11:54 AM

Oh ok, and India is a shining example of political integrity?? Which country in the world meets your high standards?

Anyway, I don’t support abortion but I’m not going to impose my beliefs on others.

That said, to be honest I wish abortion had only been made legal in extreme cases. (Too specific for me to outline here.)

@Spence
I don’t think this is about a woman’s right to have control over her own body. Should we allow people to abuse drugs and alcohol because it they have right to control their own body?? Should we legalize drugs and prostitution and assisted suicide?

RSSB teaches that the soul of the embryo doesn’t enter the body in the second trimester (which I totally disagree with—I think it’s there from day one). So, are satsangis ok with abortion as long as it happens before the 2nd trimester?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonya
You wrote
"I don’t think this is about a woman’s right to have control over her own body"

But each of us has the right and responsibility to take care of ourselves, and to make our own choices. That is what inalienable human rights are all about.

You wrote
"Should we allow people to abuse drugs and alcohol because it they have right to control their own body?"

But we do give everyone free choice. That's what freedom is all about, Sonya. People are free to make there own choices. Do you want to dictate what people do with their own bodies and remove their freedom to choose? In America we have the Constitution and the Bill of rights that guarantees all citizens have inalienable rights. That means no one can take those away.

For the Supreme Court to take away rights granted by the Constitution to all citizens and supported by the Supreme Court's own precedent is a huge step towards tyranny. It's never been done before in the entire history of America.

You wrote
" . So, are satsangis ok with abortion as long as it happens before the 2nd trimester?"

You can only get the official answer from RSSB and I don't want to quote Maharaji.

Personally, I believe the woman must decide, and it is in fact her karmic duty to make the best decision she can and no one else's to take that away.

Taking away her responsibility to make that choice is tantamount to slavery.It is one of the greatest sins that can be committed.

[Appreciative Reader]

Should we "allow" people to consume alcohol and recreational drugs? Hell yes! Should we legalize prostitution? Hell yes! Just ensure there's regulation to ensure safety, or as much safety as is compatible with doing these things, for those that want to -- like driving, and like ...well, like drinking. Make sure there's no exploitation, make sure they, the prostitutes and users, have agency.

Is pro-abortion law about the woman's right to her own body? Hell yes. You say you don't want to impose on others, then in the next breath say you'd like abortion legalized only in extreme cases. I'm sorry, but you're hickory's soul sister, sister. Repulsive though that will sound, I know, but absolutely, in so far as this issue.

If a woman elected to abort for reasons as frivolous as not wanting to spoil her figure, then while I'd personally find such a woman utterly shallow, and probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with her --- at least basis this trait of hers --- but, like Voltaire (or at least, the apocryphal Voltaire), I'd (figuratively) fight to the (figurative) death to uphold her right to act how she pleases in this respect. (Might she, herself, come to regret that choice later in life, when older and wiser? Sure, possible. But that's what choice is about. It comes with the possibility of later regretting what you've chosen. But that isn't, and cannot be, grounds to take away choice.)

Unfortunately it's true: Women aren't (other) women's friends and advocates, not always. Patriarchal bigotry has taken such deep roots that many women have embraced and internalized its principles, despite how demeaning they are towards women.

You don't like abortion? Don't do it, where your own womb is concerned, sure, absolutely. I mean, cool, great. Don't drink alcohol either, or do the ganja, if you don't want to --- and more power to you. But why try to force others to knowhow to your predilections and your choices, which is where illegalizing these leads? If you're truly concerned, then push for laws that extend MORE agency, not less, to those who might abort, those who might drink, those who might want to do recreational drugs, push for education and awareness and health & safety measures and regulations.

You're right about this not being about what it appears, but in the opposite way. "Pro-life" isn't literally that at all, all it is is about control and, in effect, an anti-freedom and anti-choice stance. Just like "Christian" isn't, in actual fact and in this context, about oneself acting by the cross-eyed beliefs of that asinine faith (which I'm fine with, why wouldn't I be), but about compelling OTHERS to kowtow to the dictums of one's own pet superstitions.

[Spence Tepper]

I'll say this again. Your cannot give standing to a fetus by taking away the inalienable and constitionally protected rights of any citizen, especially the woman.

Can there be a more ignorant justice on the topic of inalienable rights of all citizens than Alito?

The ruling doesn't actuality give legal standing to the fetus! It only removes legal standing from all citizens! The ruling places into the State the power to decide who is and who is not human!

It is they most ignorant and dangerous ruling in the entire history of the Supreme Court and takes us several miles closer to tyranny.

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens, not relinquish their responsibility to do so just because doing so is controversial to fundamentalist religion!

[Appreciative Reader]

Sorry, typo, or at least, autocorrect-o: My machine's decided to take away my right to type "kowtow", and, in one instance, imposed its values on me, by replacing, at one place, that word with "knowhow"!

[Sonya]

Well, OK then… just ignore all the traffic signs and drive at your own risk. 🙄🙄🙄

[Spence Tepper]

Sonya
Your right to drive anywhere on the road ends where my car begins.

Your right to control other people's lives and decisions ends where my skin begins.

The rights of any human being are inalienable and no one on earth should violate them.

You cannot understand what a young woman is going through faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and no woman gets an abortion without serious consideration and an understanding that the choice is a difficult one because it involves what can become a human life, and what is developing in them becoming that life. There is always a cost. You really need to speak with more women who have had abortions to understand the cost, and the benefit, which became protection of the other children, or escape from a rapist in the family or school who could not be brought to justice, or any number of other reasons you do not seem to be aware of in judging other people's decisions.

Because the responsibility is total, and a lifetime commitment, no one but the woman can make that commitment. It isn't just a matter of cases of incest or rape.

The fetus has standing, but until viability, entirely under the woman's jurisdiction. In Judaism that traditionally extended to birth, because it wasn't until then that anyone else could take over and make decisions for the baby.

The courts today vary in their view about viability, and that is where most states set that at the second or third trimester.

Until then, it is the mother's choice. And until such time as society can take over the full responsibility for either fetus or child, all decisions, even deciding to terminate the fetus, must be the woman's.

The principle is simple. You cannot give more standing to anyone if that violates the basic human rights of another.

And the solutions exist to do just that. But they are costly. The reason Republicans are against abortion rights and also against free healthcare, free housing and free education are simply that the platform represents the historic platform of slave owners.

The very platform Lincoln, the first President of the Republican party, hated and fought against.

Now the Supreme Court has handled the matter in a way that extends far beyond the issue of abortion, paving the way for State sanctioned slavery. And that is found in Justice Alito's opinion where he wishes to give the very right to determine who is a human being and who is not to the State. This paves the way for removing all those rights the Bill of Rights claimed were inalienable. It is the most serious and far reaching denial of the constitution of any decision the Supreme Court has ever made.

So, try to understand the legal ramifications for everyone, women, LGBT, the disabled, the elderly, immigrants, Jews, Blacks, anyone that can be defined in law can now be defined as potential property and no longer human.

The court did not give rights to the fetus. It took the rights of the mother away.

If you are serious about the rights of the fetus, there are better ways to promote those rights, ways that do not require violating the rights of the woman.

But the reason the court and religious extremists are promoting and have pursued this specific avenue is that is is a means to disenfranchise other members of our society not defined in their religion as people.

[Appreciative Reader]

Well, OK then… just ignore all the traffic signs and drive at your own risk. 🙄🙄🙄

Posted by: Sonya | May 07, 2022 at 01:42 AM

---------------------

Hi, Sonya.

Sorry, I guess I came on kind of strong in my last comment addressed to you. I mean, you hold a contrary opinion to mine, and why shouldn't you? Guess this abortion thing --- and indeed all of the tomfoolery that the Right (the global Right, I mean to say, not just US-centric) is up to, undoing decades of painstakingly won progress --- has become something of a trigger point for me. *rueful smile*

Well, let me, in this comment, entirely do away with the "coming on strong" thing. But, that said, seeing you've commented here, presumably to invite discussion, perhaps you won't mind my gently pointing out how your analogy is entirely misplaced?

You'd said, previously, that "I wish abortion had only been made legal in extreme cases." Now that doesn't tie in, at all, with your subsequent comment where you say (in order to parody/caricature my position): "just ignore all the traffic signs and drive at your own risk", does it now? Just think about it.

If we must use the driving analogy to the POV you'd expressed earlier, then that would come out sounding something like this: "Driving should be made legal only in extreme cases."

That short sentence probably suffices, but still, to expand on that a bit, that effectively amounts to something like this: "In general no one must be allowed to drive. However, in extreme cases, maybe when you must rush a critically ill patent to hospital, or some similar emergency, something really dire, well then at such times we can make an exception to banning driving, and permit you to drive." That fits your earlier ...philosophy, opinion, to a T, doesn't it.

To equate careful driving, while following traffic rules, to abortion, would amount to something like this: "In general and as a rule, abortion will be permitted. For any reason, including frivolous reasons, as far as the law is concerned ---- just like the law lets you drive even if all you want is an aimless joyride, taken just for the heck of it, maybe just to take in the air, maybe just to spend some time with your significant other, maybe for no reason at all other than you want it. But absolutely, if there is some medical reason not to abort, then will you go and abort nevertheless? Obviously not. I don't know if that actually works, that kind of thing ---- that is, if some medical condition makes abortion risky, then wouldn't that same medical condition, whatever it is, make continued pregnancy and eventual childbirth even riskier? ---- but still, should there, for the sake of argument, be some exceptional case where medical science says abortion may be very risky, and riskier than the pregnancy itself, then sure, I'm all for not risking the life of the mother and the child."

In other words, correctly equating abortion with driving-with-traffic-rules will mean making abortions the rule, with some exceptional cases pointing out not stopping abortion (just like you don't stop driving altogether because of traffic rules) but of regulating abortion, and in some very very exceptional cases making abortion illegal (just like in some very very exceptional cases you make driving illegal for some specific individual).

Which is completely, entirely the opposite of what these whack jobs here are proposing.

If all you're going for is driving-with-rules, in other words regulated abortion, abortion with sensible rules that are based on safety, well then sure, obviously I support that, as would any other sensible person. But hey, that would be the exact obverse of "I wish abortion had only been made legal in extreme cases". I hope you can appreciate this.

[Sonya]

>

White Male is another group that can be defined in law… so, I guess everyone is in danger.

[Sonya]

I’m not offended by anyone’s comments. I understand this is a very hot button for most people.

Let’s forget the traffic analogy… that breakdown got way tooo complicated. I don’t have the mental energy to retort. Lol

But it’s good that we can each express our different views on this.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonya!
You wrote:
"White Male is another group that can be defined in law… so, I guess everyone is in danger."
Yes, ultimately, the way Hitler himself was in danger of usurping all that power. At some point the chickens do come home to roost.

So, yes, all those global conglomerate corporate leaders who buy politicans, buy laws and buy Supreme Court Justices, yes, at some point it may come back to them. But unfortunately, placing the right to decide who is or isn't human in their hands doesn't bode well for the future of everyone else outside that little cadre. If we let that happen.

It's good to express all views anyway, so that each person has the freedom to make up their own mind, representing their own brand. And having the freedom to live as they wish.

[Dungeness]

@ Sonya : [ White Male is another group that can be defined in law… so, I guess everyone is in danger.]

Shhh... there's another fertile area for Big Pharma.

[Dungeness]

Speaking of Big Pharma, imagine the surveillance state that would emerge if
Roe is overturned. Euphoric ANTI's would be scrambling to ban legal abortion
pills such as mifepristone and misoprostol sale/prescription/distribution in their
states. To do this, they'll outlaw all medical abortion pills, ban telemedicine
access, require in-person visits by patients to providers. Such patients would
have to travel to states where both telemedicine and anti-abortion drugs were
legal to be used. To further roadblock access, states are in the process of
going after org's that offer financial aid to go out of state for such services.

Can vigilante bonuses for neighbors to turn in other neighbors be far behind?