Justice "I Like Beer" Is Wrong!

Not about beer. Well, OK, maybe that too but that's a personal preference. I admit I'm prejudiced there because I don't care for alcohol. Period. Beer even less so. So I'm unusual. But it's not the argument topic I'm blogging about.

I'm talking about the Supreme Court hearing on whether to abolish Roe v. Wade. It's not what they're calling it officially but everybody knows what's at stake. Both sides know, both those who wish to protect the right to an abortion under some few restrictions, mainly viability of the fetus, and those who - let's be honest here - wish to exert control over women, limiting their choices and freedoms by forcing them to  carry all pregnancies to term. It's not "pro life," it's "forced birtherism." Some of the potential laws on the books - "potential" because they are triggered once Roe goes away - make no exception for the viability of the fetus, the life or health of the mother, in some cases not even for rape.

So up pipes Justice "I Like Beer" with his rationalization for ending abortions. He's looking at state's rights to make all the quirky laws they please. To an extent he's right. They can make different laws about what insurance must be purchased and what has to be covered, for example, or which lands can be set aside for state parks, what speed limits on which types of roadways are safe, what kind of licensing requirements are necessary for an occupation. Thousands of differences make at least some kind of sense. But the federal laws must unify the country in other kinds of cases, common currency and interstate commerce being obvious examples. 

Civil rights are another and should be obvious. You and I should have all the rights guaranteed under the constitution, no matter which state we live in. It shouldn't matter what our age, race, religion, gender or sexual preference are. Of course there are always people who dispute one or another aspect of that, keeping our courts busy. And now "I Like Beer" sticks his nose in the issue, this time regarding abortion rights. Think of it as a trial balloon.

Don't see it? Let me explain. His argument is based on state's "interests". Different states have different interests. Sure they do, in many cases. But this is about a human right. States may think they are entitled to different "interests" regarding human rights, because they have exercised their different interests for centuries. Look at slave states as an obvious example. The "owning" of other humans proved an economic advantage to the owners. We fought a civil war over it. While we won, there are still all kinds of laws on the books that thwart the practical ways of making all races of people equal, including having two Senators from every state regardless how small the population, our Electoral College, and now the rise in obstacles to making it easy for anyone to vote. Neighborhoods with large populations of "those people" - however they are defined - often have fewer polling places per population numbers, have to travel longer distances without benefit of public transit, have fewer days to vote, and more restriction on voting by mail. Those keep us from having an actual Democracy. Political minorities hold an unequal percent of control over our elections and resulting laws. 

There is a very vocal segment of this country who still wants to turn back the clock on human rights and force their own interests on the rest of us. Some believe their religion needs to be the only one for this country. Others believe their economic interests need to be the ruling principle. Claims that fascism is returning if we're not very very careful are more than exaggeration and fearmongering. If you can't see that you're not paying attention to it through your bubble. I hope you like your fantasy.

I don't.

When I vote I want my vote to count, not more than others' votes, but equally. I also want everybody of age to be able to vote. I want my religious beliefs to be respected, but not imposed upon others. I want to be able to say what I want to, and so long as I'm not threatening anybody, lying about them, or instigating violence, be free from prison for saying it. As a woman, I also want to be free to make my own choices for my life, the same way men do. I came of age in a time when a husband had a bank account and a credit rating, and I as a wife couldn't without his consent. It wasn't assumed I could get a career that paid equal to a man's. Or a career at all for that matter. Mom told me repeatedly to learn to type so I could always get a job. I could also wait tables or maybe be a nurse or teacher. It was assumed I'd become a mother. While I never personally considered an abortion, and luckily never medically needed one, it was not a legal option. Not until Roe. I did have birth control access by then, so I could choose at least when to try to become pregnant, and various methods for postponing or preventing it. I revel in those changes for myself, my descendants, and for everybody.

Certain states have "interests" in changing all that. It's the tip of the iceberg, a deep chill on human rights for all but the wealthy and those who "think the right way." If this Mississippi law gets approved, dominoes will fall all around the country. Rights will erode. Being neither wealthy, nor one who thinks what other folks believe is the right way, I'm at risk. So are you. Justice "I Like Beer" is wrong. This is not just about abortion. It's about where this country as a whole is heading. 

Disguising it as"states' interests" is a blatant lie, and contrary to the constitution. Well, at least unless you are what is called a constitutional originalist. That term sounds good. But the document has amendments for a reason. Originally a black person wasn't a whole person, but, being property, was just a fraction of a person. They had no rights originally. Neither did women, also viewed as property of a man: father, brother or husband. Native Americans were simply impediments to the greedy expansion of land grabs and destruction of natural resources, seen only as "savages" while many were far more civilized than the Europeans practicing genocide on them. We needed amendments to grant these categories of people rights, including the vote. After we managed to create that historical body of laws, the Court saw fit to recognize the inherent right to privacy that a person has as being implicit in those laws, thus laying the groundwork for Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. It recently was extended to the "non straight" community, granting them the right not to be criminalized for who they are, and most recently, the right to marry whom they love.

The people who are trying to undermine that body of law are trying to return us to a time when wealthy white straight Christian men were the only one with any rights in this country. The question remaining is whether we are going to allow it to happen. The court seems likely to overturn Roe, if their questions to the petitioners have any meaning. They would overturn the principle of stare decisis, a recognition of settled law being settled and the foundation for new laws. It would be the reward for political shenanigans which denied court appointments to representatives of the majority of Americans and gave them to the political minorities, often seating what I'll politely call Whack Jobs on the bench with the power to make rulings on how laws are applied in individual cases. It's truly a perversion of what a Democracy is supposed to be. Of, by, and for the people means all the people, not just the powerful ones. Not just the ones you like. 

What are you ready to do about it?