SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Wade

W.J. Astore

So much for the idea of “settled law” and judicial precedent. The Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) has overturned Roe v Wade by a 6-3 majority vote. For nearly 50 years, abortion was legal in America if not always cheap or readily accessible. Now roughly half the states in America are poised to make it illegal, a major setback for women’s rights and bodily autonomy.

Many things will be written about this decision, and in fact I’ve already written about it. But one thing is glaringly obvious: this is a thoroughly politicized court of justices, several of whom perjured themselves before the Senate during their confirmation hearings.

Oh sure, they all talked carefully, saying neither “yes” nor “no” when it came to Roe v Wade. But the new justices all made noises about respecting previous court decisions, like Roe v Wade, suggesting that they wouldn’t reach a sweeping decision to overturn it. Of course, it was all BS, and many people knew it at the time. Speaking of “grooming,” recent SCOTUS justices have been groomed for decades to ensure they are against abortion and for business and corporations.

We now have a thoroughly partisan and mean-spirited court majority that will always side with business and corporations against the individual and who apparently believe that guns have far more rights to privacy and autonomy than women do.

A 6-3 majority court that embraces and advances gun rights while denying privacy and bodily autonomy to women is truly an American court.

A small coda: Shame on the Democrats for not codifying Roe v Wade into law. Even when Obama had a super-majority and promised abortion rights would be his first priority, he waffled because he just didn’t care. Now Democrats will cynically use this SCOTUS decision to raise funds. It’s just my opinion, but they’ve proved by their gutless inaction that they deserve none of your money.

The clock is spinning backwards, America. Will it stop in the 1950s — or the 1850s? And don’t forget that the 1850s were both bloody and led directly into the U.S. Civil War (1861-65).

Another small coda: I hate the calculated cowardice of these decisions that are announced on Fridays as a way of trying to limit controversy and outrage, as people’s attention is distracted by weekend plans. Dropping the bad news late on a Friday — it’s a tired approach by cowardly institutions.

One final saying: I think an anonymous female taxi driver had it right: If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

202 thoughts on “SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Wade

  1. Lt. Col. don’t you think that the Supreme Court being political appointments, for life, is another systemic problem in the US. These 9-people that nobody voted for have no business overruling Laws made by the democratically elected Congress. This current court is going to cause a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. This latest ruling on Roe vs Wade is disgusting, and has the civilized World shaking its head. And you are right, the Democratic Party shows its true colours once again. They don’t care. Gutless.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Isn’t it funny how nobody objects to having a Supreme Court of nine non-elected lifers when it makes decisions that they agree with? Sort of like Pro Choicers were when RvW was decided back in 1973.

      Sort of like the Electoral College is a great idea, as long as it’s Your candidate who gets the necessary Electoral votes even if they lost the total popular vote. Sort of like Republicans in 2016 .

      And one reason for having a Supreme Court, Dennis, is to ensure that that “democratically elected” Congress [or President] does not become some kind of Dictatorship of A Democratically-Elected Majority.

      If a sufficient number of Senators and Representatives pass a law that violates the Human Rights of a certain group of Citizens, Who and or What is going to stop them?

      Again, yet, and still: THE PROBLEM is America’s system of government and governance that are built, maintained, and sustained to ENABLE SELECTED SPECIAL INTERESTS TO HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT to manage, manipulate, and/or control national foreign and domestic military, political, economic, financial, legal, social, and cultural policies and programs. ALL TO AND FOR ~ PRIMARILY ~ THE BENEFIT OF THOSE SPECIAL INTERESTS. Any benefit “The People” or “Nation” [or Planet] might derive from all this is purely collateral and generally unintentional.

      And any “Regime Change” in DC at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue [or any other capital city on the Planet] does not change that one bit. All that changes is which Special Interests have a higher priority than others, ay least until the next Regime Change.

      In the United States, just like Slavery, the opportunities for SPECIAL INTEREST CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT WERE BUILT INTO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, and those folks have seldom missed an opportunity to take full advantage of the possibilities presented. The Anti-Federalists warned us about all this back then, but to no avail.”

      Liked by 2 people

      1. And if a sufficient number of Supreme Court Justices pass a Law that violates the Human Rights of a certain group of Citizens. Who and or What is going to stop them?

        Does that make sense Jeff? Don’t you think It would be better to trust the collective judgement of a couple hundred Congressmen rather that the judgement of 9-people, a couple who were on the verge of falling off their perch!

        Liked by 2 people

        1. This country may be fixin to find out the answer to Your question, Dennis.

          In addition to the Gun Law, Miranda, and Abortion decisions, SCOTUS also virtually totally extinguished the Separation of Church and State with its ruling on the Maine Religious School case.

          And given the decisions that those “couple of hundred Congressmen” have made over these past 21 years since 9/11 in their dealings with every Problem and Crisis that that this country has confronted since that day, i would say that those folks’ “collective judgement” has been totally contributory to the GoatFock this nation is confronting today.

          And most of the Senior Leadership of Your Saviors are falling off of their perches, themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. And every one of those whose collective judgement You are looking to to save the day are bought and sold, script written, and handled by the same owners and operators among those Special Interests.


    2. Yes. Not just political appointments. Corporate-driven political appointments.

      As George Carlin said, You have no rights.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. In effect, because 13 states with so-called “trigger bans” automatically outlawed abortion when Roe was overturned.
        Am I getting this wrong Alex?


        1. No laws were overturned by the decision. A Mississippi law restricting abortion was upheld, meaning that other similar laws in other states could take effect according to the provisions of those laws. The Mississippi law disallowed abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. Previous interpretations of Roe v Wade would have prevented such laws from being enforced.

          Liked by 2 people

    3. Dear Professor Astore and Dennis Merwood,

      Hello! I have enjoyed perusing this well-written post entitled “SCOTUS Overturns Roe v Wade”. Thank you very much, Professor Astore, for composing and posting this timely post. Thank you, Dennis, for your many insightful comments. I concur with both of you about the many sobering implications of the current state of affairs whose chaos and disruptions are very topical areas to explore the many outstanding tensions between (the sociopsychological states of) sanity/stability and insanity/instability, affecting not just reproductive freedoms but also the very existence and survival of humanity. There is plenty to explore regarding the many outstanding tensions between the two major parties. Any reasonable and discerning person can conclude that the USA has been plagued by ignorance, dogma, falsity, blind faith, spiritual stagnation and epistemological impasse . . . . .

      We have been witnessing so clearly the insidious nature of Trumpism, Machiavellian conservatism and inimical illiberalism perverting democracy for nefarious purposes and for justifying, obfuscating or muddying the waters of systemic sexism, racism, historical negationism, discrimination, marginalization and curtailment of civil rights. In a similar vein, one of my latest posts highlights not just the various traps awaiting us from the fallouts of the main event regarding the SCOTUS’ decisions on abortion and its striking down Roe v. Wade, but also how the capacity of laws and legislation to be legally valid, binding and enforceable in different contexts is both contingent (acceptable only if certain circumstances are the case) and circumscribed (restricted to certain roles or situations), given that the content, relevance and quality of laws and legislation are fundamentally filtered and moulded by class structures, social stratifications, cultural reproductions and communication frameworks as well as by the interaction between legal cultures, and the social construction of legal issues. Given your position and concerns, both of you are hereby invited to peruse my latest post entitled “🏛️⚖️ The Facile and Labile Nature of Law: Beyond the Supreme Court and Its Ruling on Controversial Matters 🗽🗳️🔫🤰🧑‍🤝‍🧑💉“, as I am certainly very keen and curious about what you will make of my said post published at

      Professor Astore, given the quality and relevance of your post here, I am pleased to inform you that I have hyperlinked your post to my aforementioned post so that my readers can access your post from the “Related Articles” section of my post.

      Happy Independence Day to you and your respective families soon!

      Yours sincerely,


  2. This decision will embolden them further. After the decision yesterday on public carry, I fear for the country. Potentially, this looks like the beginning of a long, hot, bitter summer. As to your comment on perjury by prospective justices, will the “respecting previous court decisions” provide legal reason to impeach? As for emboldening them:

    According to the dissenting opinion on pgs 171-72 of 213, “…The first problem with the majority’s account comes from JUSTICE THOMAS’s concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program. In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, JUSTICE THOMAS explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case. See ante, at 7 (“[T]his case does not pre- sent the opportunity to reject” those precedents). But he lets us know what he wants to do when they are. “[I]n fu- ture cases,” he says, “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Ante, at 3; see also supra, at 25, and n. 6. And when we reconsider them? Then “we have a duty” to “overrul[e] these demonstrably erroneous deci- sions.” Ante, at 3. So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again. …”

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Thomas is a spiteful and bitter man, or so it seems to me. He’s harbored grudges for 30 years, but he now believes his time has come. And I suppose he’s right.


      1. I’m probably going to regret saying this, but that that idiot Clarence Thomas was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice was a travesty in the first place. The Congressional hearing on his appointment turned into a charade. With members from both sides of the aisle more interested in scoring Brownie Points for themselves than questioning the obvious judicial shortcomings of the appointee.

        Wiki- Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas more poorly than they thought he deserved, the White House and Republican senators pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level qualified rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[61] The ABA did rate Thomas as qualified, although with one of the lowest levels of support for a Supreme Court nominee.[62][63]

        And the whole Anita Hill thing – phew! Wiki again -” Based on “evidence amassed by investigative journalists over… years”, including new corroborative testimony, journalist Corey Robin wrote in a 2019 monograph, “it’s since become clear that Thomas lied to the Judiciary Committee when he stated that he never sexually harassed Anita Hill” and that he had subjected her to sexually harassing comments.[96][97] Robin concurred that Thomas’s description of the accusations as a “high-tech lynching” was an authentic reaction and reflected Thomas’s sincere belief about the racial dimension of the Judiciary Committee’s inquiries.[98]”

        Liked by 2 people

  3. More gun deaths and back alley coat hanger abortions for poor women decided by 9-people nobody ever voted for, and who cannot lose their jobs, ever, because of their crap decisions.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. With SCOTUS’ New York Gun Law, Miranda, and Roe v Wade decisions, Trump’s owners, operators, script writers, and handlers who put him in the White House in 2016 have accomplished one more objective.

    Just like Obomber, Bush the Lesser and his Guide Cheney, and Billy Bob accomplished what they were sent to DC to do by those same owners and operators were before him, and just like Biden is now.

    As the Chief Inspector put it: “It’s all connected…; and we are all part of it…”:

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes. The exaltation of gun rights; the diminishment of individual rights; the chief victims being the least powerful and privileged among us.

      It’s the end-stage of empire, Jeff. The system is tightening the screws in an attempt to keep itself together.

      What will be the spark that’ll ignite all the tinder they’ve been piling up? Because something’s got to give.

      One thing is certain: the powerful aren’t worried that guns represent a threat to them.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. That is absolutely certain, Colonel, that Citizens With Guns represents no threat whatsover to the Surveillance/proto-Police State with a hyper-militarized Praetorian Guard at the local, state, or federal levels.

        If they did, the state of Gun Laws in America would be completely different; and would have been for a long, long time.

        And something’s GOING to give; it’s just a matter of WHEN.

        My bet is sometime in time to cancel the Elections in November: The bottom falls out of the economy and stock market just when Weimar-style hyper-inflation hits? A new variant of the COVID that kills the Young and Healthy as opposed to the Old and Ill? Simultaneous climate- and weather-related mega Disasters [Cat 5 Hurricanes hit The Gulf Coast and the Middle Atlantic States within days of each other? Another 9/11? Some combination of the above?

        We may get an answer to my question of “Will America Survive to Celebrate Its 250th Birthday?” sooner than we dare imagine.


  5. Not to put too fine a point on it, but with these latest decisions on gun laws and abortion, SCOTUS is saying that individual states CAN’T regulate guns, but CAN regulate wombs. I’m sure the justification would be that the first ruling involves a spelled-out “right” in the Constitution, while the second does not, exactly, but that’s just a zealot’s equivocation.

    Liked by 6 people

    1. That is not too fine a point, at all, Denise.

      That is, in fact, one of the core, critical issues that America is confronting here: What exactly are the Rights, Duties, Responsibilities, and Prerogatives of the individual States, as opposed to those of the Federal government?

      That is what the Civil Rights and Desegregation Wars in the 50s and 60s were all about, isn’t it?

      And Your hunch about Gun Rights being explicitly spelled out in the Constitution ~ whereas a Woman’s Right to determine what happens to her own body is not ~ is spot on.

      But then, given the fact that Women had no Rights at all under the original Constitution, that shouldn’t be too surprising, should it?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Yes it makes a difference whether a right is discussed in the Constitution. That’s one purpose of having a Constitution.


      1. One question that arises from that, Alex, is: Have Human Rights changed since the Constitution ~ particularly and specifically the first Ten Amendments or “Bill of Rights” ~ was written and ratified?

        Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy, Due Process, and The Pursuit of Happiness are rather clearly listed as Human Rights in that document.

        But what about Education? Or Good Health and Health Care? Or a decent Home, a good paying Job with ample Benefits? Or sufficient income to live as one pleases even if one is not employed?

        Are these Human Rights? Or Human Needs and Wants?

        And where does the concept of individual, familial, and community Responsibility enter into the equation?


        1. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses areas where government interference with human freedom is constrained by law. It’s not a listing of wants or needs. Health care etc. is not a Constitutional right.


          1. First of all, i seriously doubt that any court of law will dismiss claims to the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness because they are explicitly referred to in the Declaration, and not the Constitution.

            The Constitution was an attempt to create a system of government and governance whereby those declared Rights were accepted as real; and whereby it was the primary function of government to protect those Rights of its Citizens.

            And i did not say that the BOR is a list of Human Needs and Wants; nor did i declare Health care to be a Right, Constitutional or Human.

            i asked if it was. And, given the drive for government Health care For All, that becomes a very relevant question. Because there are significant numbers of people and their organizations who declare that Health Care IS indeed a basic, fundamental, core Human Right.


            1. OK. Well if health care is a human right, where does one go to claim it? Can I just go up to a doctor and say, now give me health care. It’s my right after all. Why not?


              1. Like i said, Alex, i don’t claim Health care is a Human Right.

                So don’t ask me that question. Ask everybody who thinks and claims that Health care IS a Human Right.

                And while You’re at it, ask them: If it is a Right, How is that Right to be protected and by Whom? Ie: Who is going to provide it and, particularly, pay for it? And How?


              2. People differentiate between “negative” rights, such as are in our Bill of Rights and “positive” rights such as health care and such. My own suspicion is that people (and countries) talk about positive rights when they don’t want to talk about negative rights. Like in Cuba health care is considered a right. Well, unless they come and arrest you of course. Then we’ll see how far the right to health care gets you after they throw you in a cell.


              1. VERY interesting. It does a very good job of distinguishing the difference between Human Rights and Responsibilities, on the one hand, and Human Needs and Wants, on the other. Thanks for the link.


      2. The Constitution changes — that’s why it has so many amendments to it.

        It’s not timeless/changeless/infallible.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “In the United States, enumerated rights are written down in the constitution, especially the first eight amendments. People in the United States also have unenumerated rights, which are not written down in the constitution but are still legally relevant.

          The Supreme Court makes decisions based on unwritten rights and what is written in the constitution. Unenumerated (unwritten) rights include the right to travel, privacy, autonomy, dignity, and the right to have an abortion. None of these rights are specifically stated in the constitution, but the Supreme Court defends these rights.”

          Or at least, abortion was defended until today.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I will be sure to notify the federal government about my right to privacy. Too bad I didn’t know about that when Selective Service said I had to register for the Draft. etc. or, Dear IRS: None of your business how much I make. I have a right to privacy you know. (sarc) Oh and if you answer me, I will also point out that I have a right to dignity. Jail? But I have a right to dignity! Sorry but his unenumerated stuff looks made up to me. Another example. I’m trying to get on a commercial flight. No you can’t see my drivers license. I have a right to privacy. And a right to travel. LOL Oh, and do they serve peanuts? Unenumerated rights and six bucks will get you a decaf cappuccino. Better hurry before the price goes up to seven bucks.


  6. Just read a very satisfying article about the recent SCOTUS ruling in Maine, which decreed that a state cannot withhold public funding from religious schools. Maine, in anticipation of the ruling, passed legislation essentially using the schools’ policies against themselves to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. Maine now says that, when any private school receiving public funds applies entrance requirements, it cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. The two schools directly involved in the SCOTUS ruling immediately refused state funds rather than admit LGBTQ students.

    The point here being that such workaround tactics could be used to nullify the effects of SCOTUS decisions such as those on guns and abortion. I would expect that New York is already crafting legislation to bypass the Bruen ruling. Whether other states muster the collective will to follow this example remains to be seen.

    The link below bypasses the NY Times paywall:

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If this Nation is to have any chance to survive as a Constitutional government [at least by this Constitution], Denise, a whole Bunch of States need to follow Maine’s lead on every issue the SCOTUS has judged so far this term: Gun Laws, Church/State, Miranda, and Abortion.


      1. give us antinomianism; it works more efficaciously and relevantly than constitutional directives, the bill-of-rights cockroach-crapola, or the judiciary’s and legislatures’ balderdash. we who are outside the deep states’ power elite and fiduciary 1% are on our own here. we recusants must not invest the power-brokers w/ any seigneury over our personal lives and consciences.


        1. I had to look up “autinomianism.” The Free Dictionary defines it as the contention that people have no obligation to obey laws and ethical standards, especially in a Christian context. Broadly, then, it could be taken as a foundation for anarchy. What I think you’re meaning, though, is a rejection of Christian dogma, yes? While I agree on that point, I wouldn’t advocate scrapping some of the precepts that are incidentally part of Christian teachings, such as the Golden Rule. Not that one needs to be Christian to be ethical or moral, of course.


          1. i repeat: antinomianism is better than what we have now in the wheelhouse of DC’s ‘ship of state’. antinomianism does not preclude the fundamental craton of conscience, compassion, and cooperative behaviour endemic to all eusocial species’ survival strategies. even neonate bairns struggle to instaurate and express this cooperative impulse by endeavouring to learn the language, attitudes, and aptitudinal endowments they are exposed to in the ambit surrounding them.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I think you’re much too sanguine about the cooperative tendencies of modern homo sapiens, my friend. Without laws, there would be chaos, a Mad Max world. We’re heading that way now.


              1. the laws are not only in place, den, but they are actually increasing as exponentially as the pres, the judiciary, and the MICC prevaricate, waste our taxes, and collect mistresses. there appears to be an inverse relationship between subreptive legalities and human behaviour: the more laws enacted, the less charitably we behave.

                Liked by 3 people

                1. I can’t speak as to the absolute number of laws today versus some other timeframe. As one example, TFG rolled back some environmental protections, and Biden has not restored all of them. And marijuana has been legalized in several states. So maybe some laws are stricken here, others added there. I don’t know if it evens out.

                  But I would suggest that the level of charitability has less to do with the number of laws and more to do with the woes that beset our society.


                2. not to have the end-state word on this, den, but i was being glib if not facetious. i too have scant-stats on the subject and expect to remain delightfully ignorant of the consequences of that exiguous attainment of privity. epistemology, in whatever guise it’s wrapped, ‘ain’t my bag’!

                  Liked by 1 person

      2. Sounds like a conspiracy to evade the law. Not sure the Justice Department would look kindly on that.


        1. That would depend entirely upon whose DOJ it is.

          Were it Corporal Bonespurs and his band of DOJ Thugs, You are probably correct. Great way to spend taxpayer money, eh?

          Were it Comatose Joe’s and his band of DOJ Thugs, You are probably wrong. After all. the Dems have votes to find in November.


    2. Obama is to blame because of Bush. Trump is to blame because of Obama. Yea, it’s a never ending cycle


      1. Not quite. Obama is not to blame because of what Bush did, but because of what he, Obama, did. All Obama did was build on what Bush did.

        And Trump is not to blame because of what Obama did, but what he, Trump did. Just like Biden can’t blame all his problems on Trump.

        And everyone one of them could not have done ANY of the things they did without our UniParty Congress approving the bills, passing the laws, and funding it all with Uncle Sam’s credit card.


        1. The Times celebrates outmaneuvering SCOTUS decisions they don’t like. The Times decries outmaneuvering SCOTUS decisions they do like. Some might call that hypocrisy.


      1. If I’m understanding you correctly, Alex….

        You are meaning that the Times evidently didn’t support states’ imposing abortion restrictions despite the original Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973?


    Overturning Of Roe V. Wade By Supreme Court Opens New Political Battlegrounds Across U.S.
    by Catherine Lucey and Laura

    The Supreme Court’s decision overruling Roe v. Wade establishes new political battlegrounds for abortion across the 50 states, many of which could see lengthy clashes over restricting or protecting access to the procedure.

    By eliminating a constitutional right to an abortion, the high court’s ruling returns the issue to the states, and about half of them, mostly led by Republicans, have been poised to ban many or most abortions if Roe was wiped away. Other Democrat-led states are moving to protect access to the procedure, in some cases preparing for visitors from states where abortion will be unavailable. And in politically diverse states with divided government, clashes over the path forward on abortion policy could continue for years.

    “This is going to put abortion toward the center of our politics for the foreseeable future,” said Steven Greene, a political-science professor at North Carolina State University.

    Advocates on both sides of the issue said that the ruling would place additional focus on state and local elections, because governors, state lawmakers and attorneys general will hold new power to enact and enforce a broader array of abortion policies. That means those contests could see additional funding and support from national groups and donors.

    “Abortion is going to be decided, not just state by state, but county by county,” said Amanda Litman, of Run for Something, a group that recruits progressive candidates to run for local offices. She said local prosecutors could have discretion over enforcing state laws.

    Continued at

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Heh. “… to The World,” eh Colonel?

        Well, it’s either that, or in the Streets, isn’t it?

        And at the moment, it looks like it is going to be in the Streets, at least at first. This may prove to be a very interesting weekend with all the anti-RvW Decision protests. It could get particularly interesting to see what happens when the Pro-Life, Anti-Abortion actionists show up. Especially if some folks on both sides are carrying weapons, eh?


        “If there’s one thing we know,” said one campaigner, “it’s that no ruling, law, or decision is unchangeable. THE RULES ARE DETERMINED BY WHO HOLDS THE POWER. SO NOW WE HAVE TO BUILD THE POWER TO FIGHT BACK.”

        People and advocacy groups across the nation rushed to voice outrage and organize rapid-response demonstrations Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority voided half a century of reproductive rights by reversing the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

        “The SCOTUS decision is class warfare—time to hit the streets!”

        Advocacy groups and activists around the nation prepared to kick off that fight with localized demonstrations across the country on Friday.

        The “We Won’t Go Back” coalition’s website includes a map to locate a planned demonstration in your area or to create your own event. [ ]

        Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, vowed to fight the “outrageous and dangerous ruling.”

        “We are the majority,” she said. “And Republicans packed the courts to accomplish through the courts what voters have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box. We will hold every Republican accountable for overturning Roe and further eviscerating abortion access.”



        Others noted that STATE LEGISLATURES ARE NOW THE FRONT LINES IN THE FIGHT FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. More than half of all U.S. states are expected to respond to Friday’s ruling by enacting total abortion bans, including 13 states with so-called “trigger bans” that automatically outlawed abortion when Roe was overturned.


        Source: [EMPHASES added.]

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Obama and the Democrats had the power in early 2009. Obama had promised to codify Roe v. Wade into law. He broke that promise. And here we are …

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Sheeeet. Can You name one promise Obama ~ or any of those ruling Democrats back then ~ made to anybody but his and their owners and operators on Wall Street that he and they Did keep?


            1. The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama
              by Matt Margolis

              “Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan have compiled everything you need to know about the presidency of Barack Obama into a single source. First published in 2016, this book has now been updated to include the entirety of Obama’s presidency, and the shocking details we’ve learned since.

              The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama compiles 200 inconvenient truths about Obama’s presidency–the facts that define his legacy: His real record on the economy; the disaster that is Obamacare; his shocking abuses of taxpayer dollars; his bitterly divisive style of governing; his shameless usurping of the Constitution; his many scandals and cover ups; his policy failures at home and abroad; the unprecedented expansion of government power… and more.”


              1. All Trump did was take what Obama did to the next level. Just like Obama did with what Bush II did. It’s called “Continuity of Government.”

                Not the COG of “establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of a catastrophic event such as nuclear” [as Wiki puts it at ].

                But to the continuity of the control of the government by the governing, Ruling Elites when the Party in charge of either end of Pennsylvania Avenue gets changed due to the inconvenience of elections.


              2. As bad as Obama was—and that’s saying something!–I still think Bush II was exponentially worse, if only because he gave Cheney access to the levers of power. Of course, he has myriad other sins to answer for, too.


  8. Clearly, the SCOTUS decisions of the last couple weeks show that the GOP’s long-range plan is working. They are rolling back settled law (NY gun laws from 108 years ago, abortion from almost 50 years ago) to suit their autocratic, theocratic priorities. As has been remarked elsewhere, Alito’s opinion leaves the door open for abolishing same-sex marriage, contraception, LGBTQ rights, and other things.

    The bigger question is whether these recent rulings will also lead to a rollback of the social safety net that began with FDR. After all, the GOP has had its collective eye on Social Security for decades, and voting rights have already been affected. How far will this destruction go before the torches and pitchforks come out? Or will they?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. i don’t know that it’s The “bigger question,” Denise. But it is certainly a very pressing question that is eventually going to have to be confronted and dealt with.

      Because SOMEBODY in Washington is eventually and ultimately going to have to deal with the fact that the Federal Government’s Unfunded Liabilities [what is projected to be required to be paid out without equivalent offsetting revenues] ~ primarily in the Social Security and Medicare Parts A, B, and D, Federal Debt held by the Public, and Federal Employee and Veterans Benefits Programs ~ currently stands at $170.1 TRILLION. [ ]

      And confronting and dealing with that is very unlikely to happen as long as Baby Boomers are a powerful voting block with ample money to buy and sell the politicians and bureaucrats who will ultimately be tasked with dealing with all those Unfunded Liabilities.

      And by the time the Boomers die off sufficiently, the next Generation will be close enough to cashing in on their promised SS and Medicare benefits that they won’t do anything about it either.

      Which leaves the Boomers’ Grandkids and Great Grandkids to deal with it.

      Along with everything else their Parents, Grandparents, and Great Grandparents are leaving for them to somehow deal with and survive.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. WOMEN KNOW HOW CHOICE AND FREEDOM FEEL – AND WE WILL NEVER GIVE THAT UP: The Supreme Court Draft Ruling On Abortion Shows How Desperate Some Are To Control Our Bodies. But We Are Never Going Back by V (formerly Eve Ensler) [Extracts]

    “To All Those Who Dare Rob Us of Our Bodily Choice, I ask you:

    “What is it about our bodies that makes you so afraid, so insecure, so cruel and punishing?

    “What is it about our bodies that make you think you have the right to invade them, determine them, control and legislate them, violate and force them to do anything against their will?

    “Perhaps you mistake our generosity for weakness, our patience for passivity, our vulnerability for fragility.

    “This might be why you are unable to see that there is no chance in hell that we are ever going back. This is not a law yet and we will never accept this ruling.

    “And because you do not know this, you do not know how dangerous we are, how organised we are, how willing we are to go any lengths to preserve our freedom.

    “It’s been 50 years. We have summoned our due. We actually have bank accounts now. We have credit cards and we can buy a house. We can serve on juries. We hold offices and are lawyers. We write for newspapers and we run them. We host TV shows and direct movies. We run hospitals and universities and non-profits and write plays about vaginas and books about fascists and fascism. We can’t be tossed aside.

    “This is our world now. And these are our bodies.

    “You have unleashed our fury, our solidarity, our unity.


    Note: V (formerly Eve Ensler) is a playwright and activist and the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls

    Source: [EMPHASIS added.]

    Liked by 1 person

  10. William, it sounds to me that when you strongly disagree with a decision you call the Justices “thoroughly partisan and mean-spirited” and then you argue from there. If you agree with a decision what would you call the Justices? Brilliant? Aren’t we supposed to be minimizing insults and name-calling?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is similar to the point i made earlier:

      “Isn’t it funny how nobody objects to having a Supreme Court of nine non-elected lifers when it makes decisions that they agree with? Sort of like Pro-Choicers were when RvW was decided back in 1973.

      “Sort of like the Electoral College is a great idea, as long as it’s Your candidate who gets the necessary Electoral votes even if they lost the total popular vote. Sort of like Republicans in 2016.”


    2. I don’t want my readers insulting each other and resorting to name-calling in the comments section.

      The description “partisan and mean-spirited” isn’t insulting or name-calling; it’s simply a description that I believe is accurate. When six judges consistently vote as a bloc on a variety of issues, that’s partisan. And indeed the most recent justices were nominated exactly because of their partisan positions. To suggest otherwise is to be (at best) naive.

      Mean-spirited? I stand by that as well. This SCOTUS decision will lead to more innocent women dying. If that’s not mean, I’m not sure what is.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “When six judges consistently vote as a bloc on a variety of issues….”

        And I think that very fact is all that’s needed to support an accusation of partisanship. That is, if they vote the same regardless of issue, there isn’t a more damning indication.


      2. So are the three dissenting Justices partisan as well? They tend to vote the same way. And I might consider them mean-spirited as well. After all, they want fewer minority babies to be born. That’s pretty mean. And, um, racist.


        1. They want “fewer “minority babies to be born”?

          Ahhh; they’re worried about Whites being cancelled in America, is that it? Subscribers to the “Great White Replacement Conspiracy Theory,” are they?

          Maybe what they actually want is fewer “Unwanted Babies” [minority or majority] to be born.

          Especially since the Pro-Life/Anti-Choice crowd does absolutely Nothing to provide any assistance whatsoever to all those UnWanted babies after they are born.

          How many Homes For UnWanted Children or Adoption Centers for Unaborted Babies do those folks operate?


          1. As former Congressman Barney Frank once observed about the compulsory-childbirth, anti-abortion crowd: “For them, life begins at conception and ends at birth.” Lots of concern about “life” in the abstract, but no use for it once it needs feeding, sheltering, an education, and healthcare of the sort many actually advanced nations — unlike the United States — have long provided their citizens as simple common sense humanity.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. Check out the name Margaret Sanger. She believed that poor people and undesirables should have fewer babies and advocated for such. She specifically worked in black neighborhoods so that those women would have fewer babies. She made common cause with eugenicists who worked to improve the genetic pool by weeding out the inferior. She is generally considered the founder of what later was called Planned Parenthood.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Alex, would you give us evidence for your comment? Can you quote Sanger supporting eugenics? Those who opposed her wanted that to be the impression of her. She said that no child should be born that is not wanted and that refers to the feelings of the mother of the child, not to Sanger’s views about any child.

              To say that no child should be unwanted by the mother is quite different from saying that children of some group of people should be discouraged as you are implying. She was not an abortion advocate, campaigning for contraception to avoid it. Keep in mind that unwanted pregnancy was rampant during her lifetime as were dangerous abortions to deal with it. She sought a different way to address the problem.

              She paid for her views. From Wikipedia: “She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She feared the consequences of her writings, so she fled to Britain until public opinion had quieted. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States”.

              I consider her a very admirable person.

              Liked by 3 people

              1. more than ‘admirable’, clif; sanger was a preternaturally courageous woman whom other women during her era applauded as an icon of female liberation from male domination and exploitation… including my grandmother, alpha menzies bohachek, who after graduating from college worked as a teacher in the immigrant ghettos of NYC. sanger’s ‘cantus firmus’ was pre-conceptus birth control, not abortion. my grandmother knew sanger personally.

                Liked by 2 people

        2. Not sure how you derive that “fewer minority babies” conclusion, Alex. Pro-choice (essentially, the position of the dissenting opinion) is about giving women, ALL women, the option to have a baby or not. It’s about providing access to termination procedures for those who want them. No one who doesn’t want an abortion would be forced to have one. The concept has nothing to do with an intent to produce fewer minority babies.

          Liked by 1 person

  11. We can chalk up another sad day for our declining American society. This current decision by SCOTUS should go into the same trash bin as their previous decision to allow corporate money into our elections.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank You for that link, Alex. Apparently she did not like it at all, and stated exactly and explicitly Why:

      Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School on May 11, 2013 to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

      Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. FOR GINSBURG, THE LANDMARK 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT AFFIRMED A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO AN ABORTION WAS TOO FAR-REACHING AND TOO SWEEPING, AND IT GAVE ANTI-ABORTION RIGHTS ACTIVISTS A VERY TANGIBLE TARGET TO RALLY AGAINST IN THE FOUR DECADES SINCE.

      Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

      “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. GINSBURG ALSO WAS TROUBLED THAT THE FOCUS ON ROE WAS ON A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, RATHER THAN WOMEN’S RIGHTS.


      [EMPHASES added.]

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s exactly what makes her criticism so effective: Because it was based on points of law, and not ideology.


        1. She was afraid the decision wouldn’t withstand a reasoned legal challenge. She would have preferred a different basis for the ruling and believed there was such.

          The recent decision to overturn is based much more on ideology than on fine legal points.

          Liked by 2 people

  12. Famous Protests in US History and Their Impacts | Stacker
    11/01/2022 · 1969: Vietnam War protest. The streets of Washington D.C., were flooded with more than half a million demonstrators calling for the end of the Vietnam War in November 1969.

    Maybe in July of 2022 Americans will add another Famous Protest to this List with huge gatherings of civil disobedience all over America protesting the current decisions by a corrupt Supreme Court of The United States of America

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Did what, Dennis? That War didn’t end until Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, more than 5 years after the big protest.

      If they hope to have any effect whatsoever on what is going on in this country, Americans will need to come up with something other than parading thru the streets with signs, songs, chants, and so forth.

      It didn’t work then; and it ain’t gonna work now.


    2. Just wanted to say, quickly, that the antiwar movement did make an impact on the War in Southeast Asia and how the Nixon Administration prosecuted it. The movement didn’t “stop” the war, but it constrained the choices of Nixon/Kissinger. I shudder at the thought of what the U.S. government would have resorted to without pushback from protesters who got in the streets and put their lives on the line (at Kent State, literally).

      Without an antiwar movement, I’d wager “Vietnamization” would have been delayed, SE Asia would have been bombed even more, and U.S. troops wouldn’t have been pulled out by 1972. I can’t prove this definitively, but all my reading and study of the Vietnam War over the last 40 years convince me that the antiwar movement made the Vietnam War less bad (we know how horrendous it was, even with a strong movement).

      That movement extended into the U.S. military itself, which really scared the government. That’s why we now have an “all-volunteer” professional military with a new identity as warriors rather than as civilian draftees.

      And that’s why the Afghan War could drag on for 20 years with no progress made whatsoever. There was virtually no pushback in the USA.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. i agree with You completely, Colonel, about the complete and total absence of any kind of Pro Peace/Anti War ANYTHING in this Nation since 9/11. And the primary reason that was and is so: Because Nobody was or is in danger of being Drafted. Which makes absolute, perfect sense.

        What percentage of those who protested the Vietnam War back in the 60s were in danger of being Drafted? As opposed to the percentage of people on the streets who were not subject to being Drafted?

        And i will only partially agree with You on the impact of the Protest Movement on the course of what the Vietnamese People term “The American War.,” or “Vietnam’s Secord War of Independence.”

        The AntiWar “movement” that had more than anything to do with the end of America’s War On Vietnam and the Vietnamese People was ~ as You briefly noted ~ in and among American military personnel, particularly those in Vietnam itself, or in the process of being sent there.

        When the Privates and Corporals ~ and an occasional Sergeant or higher ~ not only started telling leaders and commanders that they are not going to follow THAT particular order, and then, to get their point across, started fragging them… . Well, that got even the people in the Pentagon’s attention.

        And while discontent among the ranks of Involuntary Troops was present, particularly after TET 1968. it didn’t really explode [literally, figuratively, metaphorically, and metaphysically] until after Nixon unleashed his “secret plan” to end the War in Vietnam by starting a new one in Cambodia and ramping up the bombing of the North.

        At which point, an increasing number of Troops began asking their leaders and ~ more importantly ~ themselves: “So who gets to be the last American to die in Vietnam?”

        And after Kent State, America’s Anti-War Movement died with those for young Americans killed by “friendly fire.” Or was it simply “collateral damage”?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So your statement… “It didn’t work then….” was only partial factual, if that.


  13. Jeff, would you argue that this protest did not work either?
    BTW, you are the first I have heard to argue that peace protests did not hasten the end of the Vietnam War.

    “The May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd—a Black man held under the knee of a white police officer in Minneapolis—sparked protests across U.S. cities and around the world. The protesters called for justice for Floyd and other Black people—from Breonna Taylor to Elijah McClain—who were killed by police, an end to police brutality, a dismantling of racist systems and symbols including memorials to Confederate soldiers, and a greater investment in communities in need.

    The protests prompted widespread dialogue about racial injustice and the political and cultural systems that support it. The four police officers involved in the killing of Floyd were charged with crimes related to the incident—and the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck was eventually convicted on three charges, including second-degree murder.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You wrote, Dennis: “BTW, you are the first I have heard to argue that peace protests did not hasten the end of the Vietnam War.”

      That may be because the only people You have listened to are those who are either ignorant of, or simply ignore the realities of what was going on in Vietnam after that weekend-long Gathering of The Tribe.

      It was less than six months after the big 1969 Protest that Nixon unveiled his “secret plan” to end the War in Vietnam by starting a new one in Cambodia. And expanding the bombing of the North.

      And any and all American protests about that or anything else about America’s War in Vietnam ended completely when four young Americans were killed by “friendly fire” in a place called Kent, Ohio.

      That War ended when Congress finally got some balls and stopped funding it. NOT because of anything that America’s antiwar movement and community came up with and actually, really did.


    2. Floyd’s death also sparked riots, arson, looting, and murder that more often than not impacted Blacks ~ particularly Black home and business owners ~ more negatively than it did anybody else.

      And will we ever know if all those peaceful protests is what led to legal action against Floyd’s murderers?
      Is the only reason the Justice System worked because of those protests?

      And where in the US can You point to an “end to police brutality or a dismantling of racist systems” because of the Floyd Protests?

      If removing statues of Confederate soldiers is the most significant result of those protests, i’d say they were a complete and tragic waste of time, energy, effort, and lots and lots of taxpayer money .

      In the sense of actually gaining and accomplishing something, the looters, arsonists, and rioters accomplished a lot more than the peaceful protesters.


      1. Jeff, come on! Nobody is arguing that the Floyds death protests would put end to police brutality or a dismantling of racist systems. That would be naïve. The protest served to draw attention to these issues.
        Removing statues of Confederate soldiers( which was dumb) was not the most significant result of those protests. And the fact that looters, arsonists, and rioters hijacked the protests is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say all protests are futile.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. i didn’t say all protests are futile, Dennis.

          What i said was that those particular protests accomplished nothing significant in the lives of the overwhelming majority of Black Americans; especially those living in areas where police brutality and racism is the norm.

          And ESPECIALLY in those areas hit by all those overwhelmingly Black arsonists, looters, and rioters.


  14. So Jeff, what actions by ordinary Americas, or unordinary Americans for that matter, do you suggest will have an effect on what is going on in this country? Give us a clue my man.


    1. So those four young Americans who were killed by “friendly fire” in a place called Kent, Ohio made no impression on Congressmen that maybe they better off their backsides and start pushing to defund the war?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What impression did it make on American Voters when McGovern ~ the “peace candidate” ~ ran against the War Monger Nixon in 1972? [47 million for Dick; 229 million for George.]

        That is also probably a good indication of the impact that the Kent State Massacre had on folks in Congress as late as 1973.


  15. It seems to me that you guys last Insurrection in Jan 2022 was a bit of a flop. I’m guessing you have some ideas you want to give to them to improve their game plan so that their next attempt is successful, and a Civil is started. Or am I way off base?


    1. “YOU GUYS”? Heh.

      Dennis, You are not even in the ballpark’s parking lot; let alone near a base.

      We can continue this via e-mail, if You wish, as this has nothing to do with the SCOTUS RvW ruling.


      1. Phew, its to do with protesting the SCOTUS RvW ruling. But I’m done. I’ll wait for your suggestions on what actions by ordinary Americas, or unordinary Americans for that matter, you suggest will have an effect on what is going on in this country? I’m close to strike 3 here anyways.


        1. i’ll send those suggestions, Dennis. But i would also like You to explain in Your return e~ exactly what You were referring to when You wrote: “It seems to me that YOU GUYS last Insurrection in Jan 2022 was a bit of a flop.” [EMPHASIS added.]

          Especially the “you guys” part. Have a Great day. i’m going to go watch some Rugby.


  16. SCOTUS is broken. It has been for some time. But of course Congress is broken too. Corrupt, compromised, and often spineless.

    The presidency is currently occupied by a man who will soon turn 80 who is in physical and mental decline.

    Three branches of government, all compromised, all serving other needs than those of the majority of Americans.

    Then there’s the fourth branch of government: the National Security State. It thrives on war and consumes money like there’s no tomorrow. Perhaps because there won’t be one.

    These are trying times that go far beyond the turmoil unleashed by this single SCOTUS decision.

    If anyone is rejoicing here, they have no idea what lies in wait for this country.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Well spoken, Colonel. And my sentiments exactly.

      But don’t forget the other 4th Branch, without which the one You mentioned could not exist: The Federal Reserve.

      As Thomas Paine put it back on December 23, 1776:

      “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”


  17. You make an excellent point in your last sentence, Bill. As Liz Cheney (Republican though she is) said at the end of Thursday’s hearing, addressing all of TFG’s supporters, “It can be difficult to accept that President Trump….deceived you.[B]ut that is a fact.” The MAGAs who may think things are going well for them at this point will eventually find out the hard way that TFG and the GOP have set them up to be useful, expendable idiots.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I’m astonished that none of the commentators in PBS or MSNBC ( those are the ones I watched today) said anything about amendment #1 – yes the very first amendment which comes before #2 the gun thing. Amendment #1 says “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and then goes on to provide a free press and freedom of speech and the right to assemble. It’s no secret that this new Supreme court ruling is religious. I recall 50 years ago when the subject first came up and we finally got Roe V Wade the letters to the editor, and the op eds were all about religion. So why is it not even mentioned now? I haven’t read all the comments on your page, but the ones I have read do not mention religion either. But this IS about religion!!! What we have are a bunch of right wing christian fundamentalists deciding that they have the right to tell the rest of us how we should live. And now they want to continue with laws about LGBTQ and make it illegal for homosexuals to marry and I’m sure will think up some laws for trans people as well. Clarence Thomas basically said so. So why the silence on religion? The Constitution does not allow the government (and surely the Supreme court is part of the government) to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of our individual religions and, certainly this ruling does exactly that – yet all the lawyers and all the people who have been working this problem for years have not said one word abut that. WHY???

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Absolutely. Religion, specifically Roman Catholicism, has played a strong role here. But it’s a (thinly) disguised one. The SCOTUS justices don’t cite Catholic dogma in their decision. They rely on lawyerly arguments, not priestly sermons. But you’d have to be insensate not to realize that conservative Catholic views and values have played a strong role here.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I would add, QUESTIONABLE lawyerly arguments. They’re essentially positing that abortion is NOT one of the unenumerated rights in the original document, even though there would seem to be basis for the legality of abortion in the 14th amendment. Under that construct, they could chuck everything that isn’t enumerated. Not a pretty thought.


          1. Yeah. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to have a stack of AR-15s and a couple RPG launchers in the basement! /s

            And apparently, even when the enumeration is clearly spelled out—“well-regulated militia”—this SCOTUS will deliberately misinterpret. Apparently, Jefferson, Madison, et. al. overestimated their audience. Or underestimated their audience’s capacity for partisanship and sheer cussedness.


    2. Well, one could argue that the majority justices ARE exercising their freedom of religion! /s

      But in all seriousness, Ranney, you bring up a fundamental point here. Thanks for providing more food for thought.


  19. As usual, Caitlin Johnstone had some sharp comments here:

    “China is a strange, backwards nation ruled by tyrants,” said the nation founded by Puritans who used to execute women for witchcraft and just killed reproductive rights protections because they think Jesus told them to.

    The world is dominated culturally, economically and militarily by a regime that just killed women’s rights protections because they make Jesus mad.

    Feels like five minutes ago we were being told the US needs to continue its occupation of Afghanistan in order to protect women’s rights.

    Most women who’ve escaped from an abusive long-term relationship with a man can tell you about the horror of a missed period and how much more horrific that experience would have been if they didn’t know they have easy access to safe abortions.

    Easy access to safe abortions makes women much more free from male domination. It just does. And that’s exactly why it is opposed.

    As long as the powerful can make the public fight over issues which don’t inconvenience power, public attention can be kept away from issues which do inconvenience power.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. So what was this SCOTUS decision? It said that Mississippi can disallow a surgical procedure (abortion) after 14 weeks of pregnancy. In other words after the first trimester. That’s what it says. Abortion providers in Mississippi can still perform abortions up to 14 weeks. It’s just after that it would be a violation of state law. So women can still get abortions in Mississippi in the first trimester. Political organizers, politicians, the news media want to mischaracterize the decision and treat it like some kind of Armageddon. Because that’s what they do. They like to see people riled up and organized for their benefit.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Several things, Alex: first, with the ruling yesterday, Mississippi’s trigger law can go into effect, prohibiting all abortions except in cases of reported rape and when the mother’s life is at stake.

      Second, the ruling abolished federal protection for abortion, meaning that…

      Third, the states can now make their own laws. Some 12 other states had trigger laws pending, which can now go into effect. Almost half of the states, total, plan to severely restrict abortion.

      So, yeah, the ruling is a pretty big deal.


      1. What I see in the link is about 15 weeks. Nothing about restricting all abortions. And the legislator who sponsored the 15-week ban wants to improve access to birth control.


          1. Why do I think this will lead to a sudden upsurge in the number of women in Mississippi who will claim to have been raped? “Just check the box where it says ‘yes’. Our doctor will back you up.”

            Plus of course the law will be challenged, some judge will put a stay on it, etc, etc.

            What the SCOTUS decision really means is that the fights at the state level will now be allowed, the fights that were cut off by the Roe v Wade decision.


              1. That’s one perspective. The other perspective is that fewer unborn children will be killed.


              2. Alex: here’s a simple question that you obviously don’t have to answer. I will answer my own question as well.

                Imagine you’re a young woman and you are violently raped and battered, and you find you’re pregnant as a result. Would you choose to carry that fetus to term, or would you choose to get an abortion?

                I would choose to get an abortion, and I believe all adult humans should have that choice.

                What would you choose, and what do you believe? Thanks.


              3. I agree. “If I could.” I believe in a world where humans can make this decision without government interference.

                Liked by 1 person

              4. Minimizing government interference with our lives would be good. That I think was the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Of course many politicians see the Constitution as limiting the prerogatives of their power. I vote against them when I can.


            1. The provision in the Mississippi trigger law requires a police report. Not sure how many women would file a fake report and unjustly accuse a boyfriend, spouse, or even a casual partner.

              Obviously, I’m not a lawyer, but if SCOTUS has pre-emptively, specifically, ruled that states can make their own abortion laws, I don’t see how there’s standing to challenge those laws. I would think that any changes would have to come through state legislatures, UNLESS a given state law were riddled with loopholes, and I rather doubt they will be.


              1. Yes. And take a close look at those state legislatures. Often dominated by White men, evangelical, convinced of their own righteousness.

                And, to be snarky, a few of these guys would happily pay for a mistress to get an abortion, assuming they could hush it up, no matter it being illegal in their state.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. They wouldn’t have to accuse a boyfriend. “I was walking home at night and this guy jumped out and raped me. He said he would kill me if I went to the police and I was scared. That was three weeks ago, but now I think I need to make a report. No, he had a mask on.” Lying is such an easy thing to do. Just listen to our President.

                As for challenges, state laws get challenged all the time. All it takes is one judge for a stay. If it gets adjudicated all it takes is for the majority of judges to be pro-choice. They’ll find a way, that’s for sure.


              3. Alex, I don’t think lying to the police about being raped is quite as easy as you suggest.

                You could try it yourself. Men get raped too. Go to your local police station and file a report that you’ve been raped. I think you may find the whole experience to be far more disturbing than you can imagine.

                Liked by 1 person

      2. Oh OK I see it now. 10 days. Of course the law will be challenged. States can make any laws they want to and they will be effective up until the day they are thrown out for being unconstitutional.


        1. The point being that, by definition, this ruling abolishes the possibility of challenging abortion laws on the basis of constitutionality. Six justices have removed thatcard from the deck.

          Until there’s a drastic change in the SCOTUS make-up, women in this country will be firmly under the patriarchal thumb.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. I should hope not! I’ve noticed that several countries have recently abolished abortion restrictions, among them, Mexico and Ireland. Perhaps the pendulum is swinging toward choice. NZ has liberal abortion laws, I see.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, a socially conservative political group based in Iowa, praised Trump before the ruling came down. “What he did as president is, he followed through on what he said he was going to do and appoint Supreme Court justices that were faithful to the Constitution,” Vander Plaats said.


    1. To Mr. Vander Plaats:

      “OK, Bob, how much are you donating to Child & Family Services organizations in your area? And will you be voting only for representatives who want to make the child tax credit permanent, provide single-payer healthcare, boost school systems and after-school programs, raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour, and forgive student loan debt? If not, go away and keep your opinion to yourself.”

      Liked by 1 person

  22. “The Founders knew that in a representative democracy such as ours, there would be profound diversity of opinion over difficult issues like abortion. If we follow the wisdom of the Founders, we should take the debate over abortion out of the Supreme Court, where it has been decided oligarchically by judicial fiat, and let the voters of the states decide the matter for themselves democratically by voting. This is the clear sense of the Constitution.

    Scott R. Stripling, Ph.D., is Director, National Center for America’s Founding Documents, School of Education, Boston University.


    1. I think women should be allowed to make their own decisions, period.

      But if you consider what Stripling wrote, you also have to take into account conditions in individual states, such as gerrymandering, vote suppression, and so on. As it stands at this point, the GOP has engineered very favorable terms for itself in various states, Ohio being one of them. So even if one agreed with Stripling in theory, the situation on the ground is a whole ‘nother ballgame.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah States rights eh Denise. Tough shit if you are woman living in Texas, or Utah, or Idaho.
        But I suppose you drive to another state. The US is so screwed up!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. All states looking to ban abortion are in fly-over country, and all Republican right?


          1. I haven’t checked individual states, but I ‘d hazard a guess that you’re mostly right, Dennis. Although I ‘d bet that Texas would resent being described as a flyover state….


        2. Women have already been leaving Texas to seek abortions elsewhere. That practice will only increase going forward. Only for those who can afford to travel, that is.

          No argument whatsoever on your last point!


  23. George Carlin: Why is it that all these people who are against abortion are people you would not want to f*#k in the first place? Oh dear?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. The Supreme Court made abortion Constituently legal – now they make it illegal!

    This “living constitution” argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.” Obama, formerly a law professor, obviously must know that this “right” does not actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air in its efforts to justify the most illogical, sloppily written opinion that it has ever produced, Roe V Wade.


  25. The reason Clarence Thomas is on SCOTUS is because Joe Biden would not let Anita Hill’s witnesses testify. Biden is why we are at were we are today on this issue.


    1. “Sorry — you’re not getting my money again.” She’s right. Democratic politicians — their first step is to ask for money for themselves rather than developing a plan for change.

      Liked by 2 people

  26. As usual, Jimmy hits the nail right on the head with his assessment of the cynical motives of the Democrat party.


  27. “When the supreme court decided on Friday to overturn Roe v Wade, several senators who recently approved justices responsible for this decision said they felt deceived. These politicians pointed to prior statements from Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch; both male judges had claimed they would not overturn Roe.

    “I feel misled,” the Maine senator Susan Collins told the New York Times…… “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting longstanding precedents that the country has relied upon,” Collins said in a statement.

    Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the lone Democrat to back Kavanaugh, voiced similar sentiments. “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”

    Liked by 1 person

  28. “I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    Liked by 1 person

  29. There have been comments here about moving to another country. I’ve long thought my views are much more in tune with Europeans than Americans. But hearing others say they might leave puts me in mind of the view of a coworker of mine expressed to me about 1985. He said that the world was in such a state that he would not want to have a child.

    This shocked me since I was a new father loving every minute of it. The sentiment expresses a profound pessimism about the future – that one is sentencing a new person to an unavoidably bad environment. It is an abandonment of hope. I was shocked to hear him say this and my immediate impulse was to talk him out of his view.

    As things have turned out in America in the 35 years or so since then, I wonder how many people these days might share his view. I do wonder what things will happen to my grandchildren and as I watch them joyfully laugh and play (oldest is 9) I wish there were some island I could take them to along with their schoolmates where they could make their own world. Perhaps this has always been something on the mind of grandparents.

    I write this as the SC decisions are released to ask – where do you see hope? I am not at the point of despair but I sure don’t see any silver lining to the clouds. I think of a huge machine rumbling implacably on its way heading in the wrong direction. Citizens proudly wear deadly weapons in public implying that if their way is not followed, their tools will be used; an explicit refutation of democracy, forgetting that the Constitution depends upon democracy, not the other way around. As a society we are heading into winter.

    The craziness of the left in the late 60’s, and early 70’s staggered the machine momentarily. Two presidents, one of his own choice, were bumped out. But reform was followed by a resumption of the relentless motion that if anything seems to be accelerating.

    The world in my lifetime has been for the US to make and at one time it had some claim to be an example, but what a series of disasters have come of hubris. I sense the world looking on, aghast and helpless, as Americans rage at each other, civility crumbles, the planet warms and the American machine continues on its way.

    But surely, all of you have some positives to share?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Not at this time, i don’t, Clif. And this is the first time in my life since September 11, 2001 that i have no positives to share.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I have a positive to share: this site.

      People come here to discuss matters. They’re mostly civil. We don’t always agree. But everyone behaves themself, pretty much, and a few of you are getting together off my site, or you’ve become online friends or acquaintances.

      That’s a good thing.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. It seemed grim in ’85. We were caught in a nuclear arms race with the “evil empire.” But then came 1989-91, the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union. Peace dividends all around!

        But it was not to be. The owners decided they were making too much money off war. They also decided “to end welfare as we know it.” And the Bushes and Clintons did their bidding.

        No wonder why you see images of Michelle Obama hugging George W. Bush! Two peas in a pod. And of course the infamous image of the Clintons yucking it up at Trump’s wedding (his 3rd, but who’s counting, right?).

        Liked by 1 person

        1. 1989-91 was four years after 1985.

          2026 is four years after 2022.

          What’s going to prevent the US from collapsing in these next four years just like the USSR did in those four years back then?



    With abortion at center stage, almost everybody has a “Yes” or “No” answer to the following standard questions:

    Does a Woman have a Human Right to an abortion?
    Does a Fetus have a Human Right to be born?

    But there are several arguably much more important Questions that nobody is even asking, let alone answering:

    Does the “Right” to an abortion include the “Right” to make somebody else pay for it? On what basis is somebody who is totally against abortion ~ for whatever reason, secular or sectarian ~ forced to pay taxes that fund the provision of abortion services? Has that question ever been asked by either pro- or anti-abortion advocates, activists, and actionists? Or any politician, pundit, propagandist, or anybody else?
    Does anybody believe that outlawing abortion will actually end it? Abortion clinics all over the nation report surges in patient-clients from out-of-state. And for those who can’t afford a trip out-of-state, there are always folks ready, willing, able, and available to bring back the good ole days of the back alley “clinics.” Coat hanger, anybody?
    How many Homes For unWanted Children and uWC Adoption Services have the anti-abortion folks set up as real world alternatives to what they like to call a “holocaust”? At this point, they obviously care more about the Fetus before it is born, than they do about what happens to the unWanted Child after it is.
    How is forcing a woman to carry to full-term a Fetus that she does not want any different than Involuntary Servitude, aka Slavery? Wasn’t there a Civil War and a Constitutional Amendment that supposedly eliminated that? At least when it came to former Slaves? But apparently not for Women when it concerns their own bodies.

    Questions 1 and 4 are the by-far more significant; 2 and 3 merely call attention to anti-abortionist ignorance of history [ie, Prohibition, our “War On Drugs,” and abortion before Roe v Wade] and their indifference to and hypocrisy about UnWanted Children.

    Question 4 lays it right on the line for all those folks who like to wrap themselves in the flag while carrying a Bible, and claim that abortion is “Anti-American”; and is a significant player in what is destroying this nation and preventing it from being “Great Again.” Or, we are now told, from becoming “Great Again, Again.”

    And Question 1 challenges pro-Choice folks to answer the bottom-line question: Should government funds at any level raised by taxes and/or debt be used to provide abortion services? And it challenges pro-Life folks to even ask it.

    Particularly if the same argument ~ that someone who is against abortion should not have to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their present and future tax dollars ~ is applied to other government spending. Such as having to pay taxes to pay for an undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral 20-year “Forever War.” Or the US-Russia War in Ukraine.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry the Questions aren’t numbered. Everything else copied properly but the numbers for the Questions. So it goes.


    2. And here’s one more Unasked Question about abortion: If a government has the authority and power to prohibit abortions, what will prevent that government from mandating abortions when it serves the purposes of the owners and operators of that government?


  31. Clif, In the 70’s when I emigrated to the US the US had a great many great things going for it to balance out the crap things. It doesn’t anymore. Everything now in the US is crappy. I’ve watched with my own eyes the US turn into a third World Nation.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. japan was one of the 1st nations to legalize abortion, despite japan’s loss of hundreds of thousands of citizens and soldiers during WWII. it did so in 1948, partly in a humanitarian effort to recognize and abjure the lifelong despair and onerous fardel of compelling pregnant femmes and potential mothers throughout their devastated islands to care for in-utero foetuses and later bairns from ovaries exposed to the hideous radiation damage subsequent to the US’s unspeakable atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki… never mind the quondam US fire-bombings of 67 japanese towns, cities, and villages.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. At least we know where the Republicans stand. The Democrats just lie and lie some more. Excellent short video.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Isn’t it amazing how quickly politicians can act when they want to?

    Missouri’s legislation immediately went into effect. Six minutes after the supreme court decision came down, Missouri’s attorney general, Eric Schmitt, certified this decision, and tweeted: “Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Missouri has just become the first in the country to effectively end abortion with our AG opinion signed moments ago. This is a monumental day for the sanctity of life.”

    The Missouri law, which provides no exception for rape or incest, classifies the act of inducing an abortion as a class B felony, meaning it could result in a five- to 15-year prison sentence. It applies to abortion providers, though it’s unclear whether someone could be prosecuted for using abortion-inducing medications, per the NPR station.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I note that it’s a man, figurative puffed-out chest and all, who’s bragging about depriving women of rights. Which century are we in, again? Margaret Atwood was certainly prescient…


      1. Most people, when they misspeak, catch it. The fact that she misspoke then applauded herself suggests it came from somewhere inside her. I say “suggests” because obviously I don’t know.

        How “right to life” becomes “white life” — that’s more than mere confusion, in my opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. ‘soldiering on’ here, den, lysistrata is a chimera for us; a dream that will never be realized until we femmes gain control of the power levers, forced sexual abstinence or no. i played the role of lampito in our P3 [phnom penh players] performance of the aristophanes comedy, but women young or old, whether from sparta or athens, actually never achieved what aristophanes had imputed to them. nor will we femmes these 2400 years later. more is the shame. the only solution is for us femmes to be philoprogenitive ONLY w/ humanitarian, self-effacing, cooperative, compassionate, and equiponderant males. the rest should be damned and side-lined.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Katie seems to be a scold. And a bit of a racist. Hey we went to the same university. How about that.


    2. During the Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Joe Biden told a reporter that Clarence Thomas didn’t have the views a black man should have. A reporter asked Thomas to comment and he said, “Tell Senator Biden I no longer work on his plantation.” What a guy. That’s why we love him. He doesn’t mince words.


  35. Well, if the bible / Christianity is a reference for this big decision, then read these two (clear enough?)
    Genesis 2:7 Life starts with the first breath.
    Numbers 5:11-31 Instructions on a strange ceremony to abort a baby preformed by a priest.


    1. Chris respectfully, what the Bible says on abortion is irrelevant.
      Something to do with separation of church and state.
      The Bible cannot used be used “as a reference” in promulgating US Law.
      And please lets not open the can of worms of all our morals come from the Bible, or a God.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.