Notwithstanding the Supreme Court majority's boast of being "Constitutional originalists," the First Amendment of that document apparently does not apply to them. Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion overturning Roe vs Wade that since the founding fathers had not specifically considered abortion to be a human right back in the 18th century, then the subsequent Court decision making it one 200 years later was reached in error. Or, as the nuns used to put it to those of us who went to Catholic school and lived to overcome its hellfire ideology, it was a "most grievous sin."
As a priest essentially put it to my conservative, 40-something Catholic mother when she dutifully sought his permission to go on the pill after bearing six children and suffering several miscarriages: "Be fruitful and multiply."
If the secular Pantheon of Founding Fathers didn't, as Alito cynically argued, consider abortion to be a human right, then it can never be a human right. He didn't mention that since the founders were largely slave-owners who raped their property, they actively and deliberately encouraged full-term pregnancies so as to produce more unpaid labor down the road, at no additional cost to themselves. It didn't matter whether the sperm for the progeny/property came from them, or whether it was from other slaves.
In actuality, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade has set the time machine spinning back much, much further than even the horrific 1700s plantation era. The Supremes have transported us overnight right into the 12th century, when feudalism was all the rage, and the first stirrings of the Catholic Church's escalating crusades and inquisitions against heretics, infidels, and eventually, accused witches, got underway with a vengeance.
With every single one of the Supremes who voted against reproductive freedom last week being practicing Catholics themselves, perhaps they should exchange their black robes for red ones, with beanies to match.
Because although some critics have aptly called them an unelected monarchy, they're acting more like a College of Cardinals with infallible power over every-day basic human behavior and freedom, not to mention life and death.
Clarence Thomas, who wrote the concurring opinion, intimated that the criminalization of abortion is his intoxicating gateway drug to the criminalization of birth control, same-sex marriage and even interracial marriage. Once an aspiring Catholic priest, having studied at an Indiana seminary, Thomas in particular seems to consider himself a veritable sub-pope in the Supreme Holy See, without even the need for sacramental oil.
George H.W. Bush did the ordination honors, despite Thomas having served only a short time as a practicing judge. He needed that rare, conservative Black guy to tokenize and fill the shoes of the late great Thurgood Marshall.
Thomas, according to the biography "Supreme Discomfort" by Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher, gets really miffed when critics call him a recipient of affirmative action - because everybody should know that it was his own hard work and towering intellect that enabled his rise through the ranks of the American judiciary without ever litigating a single court case after graduation from Yale Law. His opinion overturning affirmative action is probably already written in draft form.
Alito similarly had a private Catholic education, as did Brett Kavanagh and Amy Comey Barrett. Ditto for Chief Justice John Roberts, who only voted against the ruling because he prefers more narrow restrictions and control over women. Sonia Sotomayor alone was able to rise above the dogma of her own parochial Catholic education to vociferously side with the liberal minority.
If there is one extremely faint silver lining to emerge from the overturning of Roe vs Wade, it's that it fully exposes the Democratic Party majority as the feckless enablers and moral co-conspirators that they are.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for one, hardly got through singing "God Bless America" on the Capitol Steps (ostensibly to celebrate some very narrow and bipartisanly ass-covering gun control legislation) before she hightailed it out of town and went straight to The Vatican to personally receive communion from the Pope himself.
Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa, Mea Minima Culpa! |
You see, Nancy gets to have her cake (rather, wafer) and eat it too. She recently bragged that her production of five children in only six years should prove to the Church once and for all that she is a good Catholic, despite her excommunication by the archbishop of her San Francisco diocese for her mouthing of toothless platitudes defending the reproductive rights of others.
President Joe Biden, also a devout Catholic, merely said that he was "disappointed" in the Supreme Court justices, before hightailing it over to Europe to commune with his NATO bros and gin up more support for his bloody proxy war against Russia. Joe, you might remember, greased the skids for Clarence Thomas's installation as secular Cardinal when he allowed his Senate Judiciary star chamber of a committee to throw Anita Hill under the bus, and then refuse testimony from other women about Thomas's sexual harassment in the "equal opportunity" employment office he had previously been appointed to during the Reagan administration.
Biden only disowned his support of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the federal Medicaid funding of abortions for poor women, when he was running for president in 2020, and then only after pressure from Planned Parenthood. For decades, he had been one of its staunchest advocates in the Senate.
Barack Obama, who took time off from playing golf in Spain to tweet out his own displeasure at the Roe vs Wade ruling, is not a religious man. Therefore, his own failure to protect reproductive rights when he had the chance is even worse than that of the Catholic leaders who are torn between their church and their state. Early in his first administration, when he enjoyed a congressional supermajority, he reneged on a campaign promise to legally codify the reproductive rights of women. It was the same old Democratic excuse: he didn't want to alienate his Republican friends. He didn't want to spend his political capital, especially if it canceled out one of his party's most lucrative fundraising gimmicks.
But he didn't stop there. When, in 2011. Kathleen Sebelius, his Catholic Health and Human Services secretary, blocked the FDA's approval of over-the-counter Plan B, or "morning-after" pills, to teenagers under 18, Obama offered his full-throated support of the ban. He chauvinistically moralized that "as the father of two young girls" he, too, felt uncomfortable with the thought of teens being able to just prance into the drugstore to buy birth control like it was candy.
Susan F. Wood of George Washington University, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 because of delays by the George W. Bush administration in relaxing restrictions on Plan B, said she was “beyond stunned” by the decision.
“There is no rationale that can justify HHS reaching in and overturning the FDA on the decision about this safe and effective contraception,” Wood said. “I never thought I’d see this happen again.”
Remember.... nobody expects the American Inquisition. It is bipartisan, for one thing. It is always shocking whenever "your side" drops the liberal mask and goes all medieval on you.
Even after Planned Parenthood sued the Obama administration and won, the Obama administration kept right on appealing the ruling. Finally, in 2013, a federal appeals court judge issued a stinging rebuke, accusing them of bad faith and playing politics, and ordered the FDA to immediately lift the age restriction in the sale of the pills.
Of course, birth control bans essentially have always been about women having sex, and having fun while doing so and threatening to achieve economic parity once escaping the brood mare corral. It's about men feeling squeamish about their womenfolk having uncontrolled sex and power even other women feeling squeamish about other women having sex and power. Certain powerful men like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, and yes, even Barack and Joe, must always cling to the illusion that they are the ones in charge.
As for us, as we learn to cling anew to the reality that we can never rely on any politician or feudal lord to grant or protect our rights, here's a wee bit of Pythonesque solace to tide you over until the dawning of yet another new post-post-modern day.
Fifty years ago, abortion was illegal in Michigan under a law from 1931.
ReplyDeleteAfter Roe, Michigan never repealed that law. Michigan never passed a law that codified what it was actually doing for the last half century. Through many state governments controlled by both Democrats and Republicans, nothing at all was done. We are still 1931 on the books.
So when Roe was overruled, Michigan reverted back to 1931. Our Governor is outraged, and vows not to allow that. There is a rushed lower court's injunction just put in place to prevent the old law being enforced.
We are facing half a century of neglect of basic legal housekeeping, at both the Federal and State levels. I expect many other states are in the same situation of consequences from long term neglect.
Yet both sides talked endlessly about abortion. It was a hot button topic for fund raising and voter turnout. They cared. They just did not care to do anything, not even the most basic things. Perhaps what they really cared about was using it all to get money and power, not really about doing their jobs.
ReplyDelete>>>—why we need ranked choice voting, including “none of the above” among the choices—>
Taking the Neither Pill --
On talking with Ben Shapiro, the death of Roe v. Wade, and the end of Normie politics
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/taking-the-neither-pill?utm_source=email
June 27, 2022 ~ by Matt Taibbi
Not only do we need ranked choice voting, we need referendums on a Federal level. In Australia, the gay marriage issue was a hot topic. We all went to vote on it and most Australians voted in favour of same sex marriage - despite all the media and commercials spewing their prejudices - and it is now law. The more I live in a country with a Parliamentary system and preferential voting, and Federal Referendums, the more I recognize how the American system has been rigged from the start against democracy by the people.
ReplyDeleteNot a surprise, Obama caved on the morning after pill. He turned on his constituency from the start. As a primary teacher working with kids on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, the last thing we want is under-aged girls becoming mothers. On the whole, these young women make terrible parents - because they are still children themselves and often have little to no support from the adults around them - and for most of them, their prefrontal cortexes aren't developed enough to take on the enormous responsibility that good parenting entails. Their children are often neglected educationally (They often have no interest in helping their children with their learning at home) nutritionally (Their children come to school with either junk food or no food) and emotionally (These mothers just don't have the maturity to want to take on the emotional burdens of their children). The idea that a self-righteous jerk like Clarence Thomas wants to go after the morning after pill, makes me absolutely sick.
Read what Margaret Atwood has to say about this SC decision. It's very sobering.
The Founders were much closer in time to the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 and 1693 than they are to our time. That is 97 years vs 233 years, 2.4 times longer.
ReplyDeleteThey were afraid of religions. Intimidated. They hid being Freemasons, while pretending to a religion as Deism and such. Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible to take out a lot, while he also obtained an English language copy of the Koran.
We must recognize the limits of how far they dared to go in their time, to get ratification of the Constitution from the religious feeling they feared.
They wrote the Establishment Clause to mean the US would not set up a national church, as all other Protestant nations had done, England and Scotland and Sweden as examples.
That is all they wrote. They dared not go further to "separate" government from religion. I've no doubt they would have liked to do so. It is my own feeling too. But it is dangerous to extend what they wrote past their actual words.
"Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It is an accretion, added on by those who want it, and never accepted by those who never wanted it.
I agree it is a natural consequence of not setting up one state church. However, my idea of a natural extension of what is written does not mean that is in the words of the Constitution. It is not there.
This is a danger. We are not safer by pretending the danger is not there. We are not safer from those who disagree by pretending it is already settled as we'd like against them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the subject headline,"Nobody Expects the U.S. Inquisition", should read instead: "(Practically) Everybody Accepts the U.S. Inquisition"
Heil Mary, and pass the ammunition.
Holy moly The short term media coverage has no comment on the long range effects of this. Everybody has been asleep at the switch. Good coverage, Karen
ReplyDelete